Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Pacific Medical CentersPacific Medical Centers
VS
Hapvida NotreDame IntermédicaHapvida NotreDame Intermédica
Pacific Medical Centers

Pacific Medical Centers

1200 12th Avenue S, None, Seattle, WA, US, 98144

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

Pacific Medical Centers (PacMed) is a private, not-for-profit, primary and integrated multi-specialty health care network with 9 outpatient clinics across the Puget Sound region and more than 175 primary and specialty care providers. Affiliated with the Providence St. J...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:668
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Av. Paulista 867, São Paulo, SP, BR, 01311-100

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.hapvida.com.br/
809/1000Good

Com 80 anos de experiência, a Hapvida é hoje a maior empresa de saúde integrada da América Latina. A companhia, que possui mais de 73 mil colaboradores, atende 16 milhões de beneficiários de saúde e odontologia espalhados pelas cinco regiões do Brasil. Todo o aparato ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:37,160
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pacific Medical Centers

Pacific Medical Centers

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Pacific Medical Centers in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pacific Medical Centers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pacific Medical Centers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Pacific Medical Centers

Pacific Medical Centers

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Pacific Medical Centers or Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Pacific Medical Centers or Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Pacific Medical Centers and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2