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

Comparison Overview

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, MalaysiaPERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia
VS
Sharp HealthCareSharp HealthCare
PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

Pusat Rehabilitasi PERKESO, Bandar Hijau, Hang Tuah Jaya, 75450, MY

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
721/1000Moderate

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre Malaysia is a company based out of Malaysia.

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:124
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

8695 Spectrum Center Blvd., San Diego, 92123, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
742/1000Moderate

Sharp HealthCare is a not-for-profit health care system based in San Diego, California, with four acute care hospitals, three specialty hospitals, three medical groups and a health plan. We provide medical services in virtually all fields of medicine, including primary ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,373
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

-
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
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

-
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 PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Sharp HealthCare in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Sharp HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sharp HealthCare 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...
PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

PERKESO Rehabilitation Centre, Malaysia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PER23384224
Sharp HealthCare

Sharp HealthCare

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SHA557072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
SHA1038072825

FAQ

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