Comparison Overview

Rochester Regional Health

VS

University Hospitals

Rochester Regional Health

100 S Kings Hwy, Rochester, New York, US, 14617
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Rochester Regional Health, headquartered in Rochester, NY, is an integrated health services organization serving the people of Western New York, the Finger Lakes, St. Lawrence County, and beyond. We are dedicated to helping our community stay healthy and live fulfilling lives. Together, we find the best way forward to where you want to be. From western to northern New York, rest assured; we’ve got you covered. We see you. We’re with you. We’re here to uplift you—to treat people, not symptoms. To treat you well. Our experience is nation-leading, neighbor-driven, and rooted in generations of real-life care. Today, we offer comprehensive care from 500+ locations, including 8 hospitals; more than 300 primary and specialty practices, rehabilitation centers and ambulatory campuses; innovative senior services, facilities and independent housing; a wide range of behavioral health services; and ACM Global Laboratories, a global leader in patient and clinical trials. Whatever you need, from every age, to every stage, across every service line, and every symptom... Whatever it is, we’re here for it. Learn more about Rochester Regional Health at careers.rochesterregional.org. Rochester Regional Health is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Minority/Female/Disability/Veteran

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,946
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

University Hospitals

University Hospitals, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, US, 44106
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Founded in 1866, University Hospitals serves the needs of patients through an integrated network of 23 hospitals (including 5 joint ventures), more than 50 health centers and outpatient facilities, and over 200 physician offices in 16 counties throughout northern Ohio. The system’s flagship quaternary care, academic medical center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, is affiliated with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Oxford University and the Technion Israel Institute of Technology. The main campus also includes the UH Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, ranked among the top children’s hospitals in the nation; UH MacDonald Women's Hospital, Ohio's only hospital for women; and UH Seidman Cancer Center, part of the NCI-designated Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. UH is home to some of the most prestigious clinical and research programs in the nation, with more than 3,000 active clinical trials and research studies underway. UH Cleveland Medical Center is perennially among the highest performers in national ranking surveys, including “America’s Best Hospitals” from U.S. News & World Report. UH is also home to 19 Clinical Care Delivery and Research Institutes. UH is one of the largest employers in Northeast Ohio with more than 30,000 employees.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,318
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rochesterregionalhealth.jpeg
Rochester Regional 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
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
Rochester Regional Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University Hospitals
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 Rochester Regional Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for University Hospitals in 2025.

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

Rochester Regional Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University Hospitals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University Hospitals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rochesterregionalhealth.jpeg
Rochester Regional Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Rochester Regional Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University Hospitals company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University Hospitals company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Rochester Regional Health company.

In the current year, University Hospitals company and Rochester Regional Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Rochester Regional Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while University Hospitals company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University Hospitals company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Rochester Regional Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University Hospitals company nor Rochester Regional Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Rochester Regional Health company nor University Hospitals company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University Hospitals company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Rochester Regional Health company.

University Hospitals company employs more people globally than Rochester Regional Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Rochester Regional Health nor University Hospitals 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