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

Comparison Overview

SGMC HealthSGMC Health
VS
Boston Children's HospitalBoston Children's Hospital
SGMC Health

SGMC Health

2501 North Patterson Street, Valdosta, Georgia, US, 31602

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.sgmc.org
741/1000Moderate

SGMC Health is the most comprehensive health system serving South Georgia and North Florida. SGMC Health operates four hospitals across Lowndes, Berrien, and Lanier counties. The system also operates an ambulance services, dozens of medical offices, a cancer center, hos...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:1,762
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Boston Children's Hospital

Boston Children's Hospital

300 Longwood Ave, Boston, 02215, US

Last Update: 06/08/2026

View Profile
763/1000Fair

Boston Children's Hospital is a 404-bed comprehensive center for pediatric health care. As one of the largest pediatric medical centers in the United States, Boston Children's offers a complete range of health care services for children from birth through 21 years of ag...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:17,578
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SGMC Health

SGMC Health

-
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
Boston Children's Hospital

Boston Children's Hospital

-
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 SGMC Health in 2026.

Incidents

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

Boston Children's Hospital has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - SGMC Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SGMC Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Boston Children's Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Children's Hospital 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...
SGMC Health

SGMC Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOU05624422
Boston Children's Hospital

Boston Children's Hospital

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOSKUMCOI1785976557
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOS2373622

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA