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

Comparison Overview

Pharmacy TimesPharmacy Times
VS
Bon SecoursBon Secours
Pharmacy Times

Pharmacy Times

259 Prospect Plains Rd, Monroe, 08831, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pharmacytimes.com
762/1000Fair

Pharmacy Times brings pharmacists into the center of the clinical conversation. As part of MJH Life Sciences’ Healthcare Engagement Network, we deliver evidence-based insights for pharmacists across all areas of practice. We unite clinical news, expert perspectives, the...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:2,145
Subsidiaries:55
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Bon Secours

Bon Secours

1505 Marriottsville Road, Marriottsville, 21104, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bonsecours.com
759/1000Fair

Bon Secours Health System, Inc. based in Marriottsville, Maryland, is a $3.2 billion dollar not-for-profit Catholic health system that owns, manages or joint ventures 18 acute care, 5 long term care, 4 assisted living, 6 retirement communities/senior housing, 14 home ca...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:10,337
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pharmacy Times

Pharmacy Times

-
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
Bon Secours

Bon Secours

-
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 Pharmacy Times in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Bon Secours in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pharmacy Times (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pharmacy Times cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Bon Secours (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bon Secours cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Pharmacy Times

Pharmacy Times

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PHA323072725
Bon Secours

Bon Secours

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BON341622
🔒 Incident : Breach
BON158082125

FAQ

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