Comparison Overview

OneBlood

VS

Sanford Health

OneBlood

8669 Commodity Circle, Orlando, Florida, US, 32819
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 650 and 699

OneBlood is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) community asset responsible for providing safe, available and affordable blood to more than 200 hospital partners and their patients. The service area of OneBlood includes the Tampa Bay area, the Orlando-metro area and surrounding Central Florida counties, South and Southeast Florida, parts of Southwest Florida, Pensacola, Tallahassee and areas in Southern Georgia and Alabama. The OneBlood name is a constant reminder of the collective power we share to save another person’s life.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,661
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Sanford Health

-, Sioux Falls, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

Sanford Health is the largest rural health system in the U.S. Our organization is dedicated to transforming the health care experience and providing access to world-class health care in America’s heartland. Headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, we serve more than one million patients and 220,000 health plan members across 250,000 square miles. Our integrated health system has 47 medical centers, 2,800 physicians and advanced practice providers, 170 clinical investigators and research scientists, more than 200 Good Samaritan Society senior care locations, and world clinics in eight countries around the globe. Learn more about our commitment to shaping the future of rural health care at sanfordhealth.org or Sanford Health News.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,769
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oneblood.jpeg
OneBlood
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sanford-health.jpeg
Sanford Health
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
OneBlood
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sanford Health
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OneBlood in 2025.

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sanford Health in 2025.

Incident History — OneBlood (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OneBlood cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Sanford Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sanford Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oneblood.jpeg
OneBlood
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sanford-health.jpeg
Sanford Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Sanford Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to OneBlood company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

OneBlood company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Sanford Health company.

In the current year, Sanford Health company and OneBlood company have not reported any cyber incidents.

OneBlood company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Sanford Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Sanford Health company and OneBlood company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Sanford Health company nor OneBlood company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OneBlood company nor Sanford Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither OneBlood company nor Sanford Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Sanford Health company employs more people globally than OneBlood company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OneBlood nor Sanford Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X