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

Comparison Overview

Penn Medicine HealthWorksPenn Medicine HealthWorks
VS
Amsterdam UMCAmsterdam UMC
Penn Medicine HealthWorks

Penn Medicine HealthWorks

N/A

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Keeping your employees healthy by making healthy easy is what Penn Medicine HealthWorks is all about. Backed by the resources of Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, we partner with businesses to offer customized corporate health programs that meet the unique needs o...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1100 DE, NL

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
787/1000Fair

At Amsterdam UMC, more than 15,000 professionals strive to provide good and accessible care. For the generations of today and tomorrow. The two medical university centers in Amsterdam, AMC and VUmc, are working together towards a future in which we prevent illnesses and...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:18,002
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Penn Medicine HealthWorks

Penn Medicine HealthWorks

-
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
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

-
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 Penn Medicine HealthWorks in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Amsterdam UMC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Penn Medicine HealthWorks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Penn Medicine HealthWorks 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 - Amsterdam UMC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amsterdam UMC 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...
Penn Medicine HealthWorks

Penn Medicine HealthWorks

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Amsterdam UMC

Amsterdam UMC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1