Comparison Overview

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic

VS

Optum

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic

400 E Fifth Ave, None, Spokane, Washington, US, 99220
Last Update: 2025-08-05 (UTC)

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic is located in Spokane, Washington, a city situated along the banks of the Spokane River, where the Columbia River Valley rises to meet the forests of the northern Rockies. With over 200,000 people (over 400,000 in the metro area), Spokane is the second largest city in Washington state. It serves as a health care and service hub for the 1.5 million people living in eastern Washington, northern Idaho and western Montana. Rockwood Clinic is the largest outpatient diagnostic and treatment center in the region, with multiple locations offering primary care, urgent care and specialty care. We offer comprehensive health care through a diverse offering of specialties through our outpatient diagnostic and treatment centers.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 503
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Optum

11000 Optum Circle, Eden Prairie , MN, 55344, US
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

We’re evolving health care so everyone can have the opportunity to live their healthiest life. It’s why we put your unique needs at the heart of everything we do, making it easy and affordable to manage health and well-being. We are delivering the right care how and when it’s needed; providing support to make smarter and healthier choices; and making prescription services easier, while helping you save money along the way. It’s everything health care should be. Together, for better health. Optum is part of UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH).

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 91,223
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rockwood-clinic.jpeg
MultiCare Rockwood Clinic
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/optum.jpeg
Optum
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
MultiCare Rockwood Clinic
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Optum
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 MultiCare Rockwood Clinic in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Optum in 2025.

Incident History — MultiCare Rockwood Clinic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Optum cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rockwood-clinic.jpeg
MultiCare Rockwood Clinic
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2022
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/optum.jpeg
Optum
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Optum company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Optum company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company.

In the current year, Optum company has reported more cyber incidents than MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company.

Both Optum company and MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Both Optum company and MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Optum company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company nor Optum company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Optum company.

Optum company employs more people globally than MultiCare Rockwood Clinic company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds HIPAA certification.

Neither MultiCare Rockwood Clinic nor Optum holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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