Comparison Overview

Philips

VS

Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System

Philips

Amstelplein 2, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, NL, 1096 BC
Last Update: 2025-11-24

Over the past decade we have transformed into a focused leader in health technology. At Philips, our purpose is to improve people’s health and well-being through meaningful innovation. We aim to improve 2.5 billion lives per year by 2030, including 400 million in underserved communities. We see healthcare as a connected whole. Helping people to live healthily and prevent disease. Giving clinicians the tools they need to make a precision diagnosis and deliver personalized treatment. Aiding the patient's recovery at home in the community. All supported by a seamless flow of data. As a technology company, we – and our brand licensees – innovate for people with one consistent belief: there’s always a way to make life better. Visit our website: http://www.philips.com/ Follow our social media house rules https://www.philips.com/a-w/about-philips/social-media.html

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 65,228
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System

3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19104
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Penn Medicine’s mission is to advance knowledge and improve health through research, patient care, and the education of trainees in an inclusive culture that embraces diversity, fosters innovation, stimulates critical thinking, supports lifelong learning, and sustains our legacy of excellence. Penn Medicine includes six acute-care hospitals and hundreds of outpatient centers throughout the region. Our hospitals include The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Pennsylvania Hospital, Chester County Hospital, Lancaster General Health and Penn Medicine Princeton Health. Penn Medicine has been named #6 on Forbes Magazine’s annual “Best Employers in America” list ranking large employers across the nation, up from #7 in 2017. Penn Medicine has also been named #2 on Forbes Magazine's first-ever "Best Employers for Women"​ list in 2018. Honors include #1 in the Region and top Health Care employer. Stay connected at: https://www.pennmedicine.org/news

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 21,151
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philips.jpeg
Philips
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/university-of-pennsylvania-health-system.jpeg
Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System
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
Philips
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System
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 Philips in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System in 2025.

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

Philips cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/philips.jpeg
Philips
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Software Vulnerability
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-pennsylvania-health-system.jpeg
Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Philips company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Philips company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company has not reported any.

In the current year, Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company and Philips company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Philips company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company nor Philips company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company nor Philips company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Philips company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Philips company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company.

Philips company employs more people globally than Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Philips nor Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

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