Comparison Overview

Scripps Health

VS

Prisma Health

Scripps Health

10140 Campus Point Dr, San Diego, 92121, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 650 and 699

Whether you are searching for your next career opportunity or looking for care for yourself or a family member, you’ll find what you need at Scripps. Founded in 1924 by philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps, Scripps is a non-profit integrated health care delivery system based in San Diego, Calif. We treat more than 700,000 patients annually through the dedication of 3,000 affiliated physicians and more than 15,000 employees among our five acute-care hospital campuses, hospice and home health care services, 27 outpatient centers and clinics, and hundreds of affiliated physician offices throughout the region. Medical Excellence Every Step of the Way Recognized as a leader in disease and injury prevention, diagnosis and treatment, Scripps has been ranked four times as one of the nation’s best health care systems by Truven Health Analytics. Our hospitals are consistently ranked by U.S. News & World Report among the nation’s best – and Scripps is regularly recognized by Fortune, Working Mother magazine and The Advisory Board as one of the best places in the nation to work. Scripps is also at the forefront of clinical research, genomic medicine and wireless health care. With three highly respected graduate medical education programs, Scripps is a longstanding member of the Association of American Medical Colleges. More information can be found at www.scripps.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,706
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Prisma Health

300 E McBee Ave, Greenville, 29601, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Prisma Health is the largest not-for-profit health organization in South Carolina, serving more than 1.2 million patients annually. Our facilities in the Greenville and Columbia surrounding markets are dedicated to improving the health of all South Carolinians through improved clinical quality, access to care and patient experience, while also addressing the rising cost of health care. Our Purpose: Inspire health. Serve with compassion. Be the difference.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 13,747
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/scripps-health.jpeg
Scripps 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/prisma-health.jpeg
Prisma 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
Scripps Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Prisma 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 Scripps Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Prisma Health in 2026.

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

Scripps Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Prisma Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/scripps-health.jpeg
Scripps Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2023
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/prisma-health.jpeg
Prisma Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Stolen Credentials
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Prisma Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Scripps Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Scripps Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Prisma Health company.

In the current year, Prisma Health company and Scripps Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Scripps Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Prisma Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Scripps Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Prisma Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Prisma Health company nor Scripps Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Scripps Health company nor Prisma Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Prisma Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Scripps Health company.

Prisma Health company employs more people globally than Scripps Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Scripps Health nor Prisma Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N