Comparison Overview

OSF HealthCare

VS

Johnson & Johnson

OSF HealthCare

124 SW Adams St, Peoria, 61602, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 650 and 699

OSF HealthCare is an integrated health system founded by The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis. Headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, OSF HealthCare has 17 hospitals – 11 acute care, five critical access and one continuing care – with 2,305 licensed beds throughout Illinois and Michigan. OSF employs more than 26,000 Mission Partners across 171 locations; has two colleges of nursing; operates OSF Home Care Services, an extensive network of home health and hospice services; owns Pointcore, Inc., comprised of health care-related businesses; OSF HealthCare Foundation, the philanthropic arm for the organization; and OSF Ventures, which provides investment capital for promising health care innovation startups. In 2020, OSF OnCall was established as a digital health operating unit and includes a hospital-at-home program. OSF OnCall delivers care and services when, where and how patients prefer to receive them. OSF HealthCare has been recognized by Fortune as one of the most innovative companies in the country. OSF consistently earns recognition for showing dedication to the well-being of its Mission Partners: •America’s Best-in-State Employers | Forbes Magazine | 2018-2025 •150 Top Places to Work in Healthcare | Becker’s Healthcare | 2019, 2022-2025 •Best Employers for Women | Forbes Magazine | 2020 OSF HealthCare is an Equal Opportunity Employer (EOE). By engaging with this page, you acknowledge and agree to follow our social media terms of use, which you can find here: https://www.osfhealthcare.org/patients-visitors/terms-conditions/social-terms

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 12,123
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. As a focused healthcare company, with expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we’re empowered to tackle the world’s toughest health challenges, innovate through science and technology, and transform patient care. ​ All of this is possible because of our people. We’re passionate innovators who put people first, and through our purpose-driven culture and talented workforce, we are stronger than ever. ​ Learn more at https://www.jnj.com. Community Guidelines: http://www.jnj.com/social-media-community-guidelines

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 108,305
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/osf-healthcare.jpeg
OSF HealthCare
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/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
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
OSF HealthCare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Johnson & Johnson
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 OSF HealthCare in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Johnson & Johnson in 2026.

Incident History — OSF HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OSF HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/osf-healthcare.jpeg
OSF HealthCare
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized third-party access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain (Plaintiffs), Corporate Accountability, Consumer Protection
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to OSF HealthCare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Johnson & Johnson company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to OSF HealthCare company.

In the current year, Johnson & Johnson company and OSF HealthCare company have not reported any cyber incidents.

OSF HealthCare company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Johnson & Johnson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Johnson & Johnson company and OSF HealthCare company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Johnson & Johnson company nor OSF HealthCare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OSF HealthCare company nor Johnson & Johnson company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johnson & Johnson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to OSF HealthCare company.

Johnson & Johnson company employs more people globally than OSF HealthCare company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OSF HealthCare nor Johnson & Johnson holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N