Comparison Overview

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG

VS

Highmark Health

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG

1 Schlossplatz, Bad Neustadt an der Saale, DE, 97616
Last Update: 2025-11-22

Die RHÖN‐KLINIKUM AG ist einer der größten Gesundheitsdienstleister in Deutschland. Die Kliniken bieten exzellente Medizin mit direkter Anbindung zu Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen. An den fünf Standorten Campus Bad Neustadt, Klinikum Frankfurt (Oder), Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Universitätsklinikum Marburg (UKGM) sowie der Zentralklinik Bad Berka werden jährlich rund 855.000 Patienten behandelt. Über 18.100 Mitarbeitende sind im Unternehmen beschäftigt. Das innovative RHÖN-Campus-Konzept für eine sektorenübergreifende und zukunftsweisende Gesundheitsversorgung im ländlichen Raum, die konsequente Fortsetzung des schrittweisen digitalen Wandels im Unternehmen sowie die strategische Partnerschaft mit Asklepios sind wichtige Säulen der Unternehmensstrategie. Die RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG ist ein eigenständiges Unternehmen unter dem Dach der Asklepios Kliniken GmbH & Co. KGaA.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 210
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Highmark Health

120 5th Ave, None, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-20

A national blended health organization, Highmark Health and our leading businesses support millions of customers with products, services and solutions closely aligned to our mission of creating remarkable health experiences, freeing people to be their best. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, we're regionally focused in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and New York, with customers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We passionately serve individual consumers and fellow businesses alike. Our companies cover a diversified spectrum of essential health-related needs, including health insurance, health care delivery, population health management, dental solutions, reinsurance solutions, and innovative technology solutions. Our financial position reflects strength and stability, with our year-end 2024 consolidated revenues totaling $29.4 billion. We’re also proud to carry forth an important legacy of compassionate care and philanthropy that began more than 170 years ago. This tradition of giving back, reinvesting and ensuring that our communities remain strong and healthy is deeply embedded in our culture, informing our decisions every day.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,287
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rhön-klinikum-ag.jpeg
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
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/highmark-health.jpeg
Highmark Health
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
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Highmark Health
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 RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Highmark Health in 2025.

Incident History — RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Highmark Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Highmark Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rhön-klinikum-ag.jpeg
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/highmark-health.jpeg
Highmark Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Account Takeover
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Highmark Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Highmark Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has not reported any.

In the current year, Highmark Health company and RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Highmark Health company nor RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Highmark Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Highmark Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company nor Highmark Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Highmark Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company.

Highmark Health company employs more people globally than RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Highmark Health 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