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

Comparison Overview

SevitaSevita
VS
Mass General BrighamMass General Brigham
Sevita

Sevita

6600 France Avenue South, Suite 350, Edina, Minnesota, US, 55435

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://sevitahealth.com/
778/1000Fair

Homes and communities are where people thrive. We’ve held this belief since our founding in 1967 and have worked to make it reality for the thousands of individuals we serve. We continue that work today and are using innovation, technology, and collaboration across our ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,429
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

399 Revolution Dr, Somerville, Massachusetts, US, 02145

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
735/1000Moderate

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, commun...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:13,230
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sevita

Sevita

-
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
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

-
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 Sevita in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Mass General Brigham in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sevita (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sevita cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Mass General Brigham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mass General Brigham 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...
Sevita

Sevita

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS548072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS844072325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44654
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-44653
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-42507
SUMMARY

When returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-42504
SUMMARY

Decoding a maliciously-crafted MIME header containing many invalid encoded-words can consume excessive CPU.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-41412
SUMMARY

alf.io is an open source ticket reservation system for conferences, trade shows, workshops, and meetups. Prior to version 2.0-M5-2606, the alf.io extension sandbox injects a fully-functional HTTP client (`simpleHttpClient`) into every extension script's scope. The `postFileAndSaveResponse()` method accepts an arbitrary filesystem path as its `file` parameter and reads the file contents using `new FileInputStream(file)` with no path validation, directory restriction, or allowlist. A malicious extension script can read any file accessible to the JVM process user and exfiltrate it to an attacker-controlled server via HTTP POST. Version 2.0-M5-2606 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2