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

Comparison Overview

SingHealth PolyclinicsSingHealth Polyclinics
VS
M42 HealthM42 Health
SingHealth Polyclinics

SingHealth Polyclinics

SHP-Head Office, 167 Jalan Bukit Merah Connection One (Tower 5), #15-10, Singapore, Singapore, 150167, Singapore, 150167, SG

Last Update: 22/12/2025

View Profile
762/1000Fair

SingHealth Polyclinics comprises a network of polyclinics that provide primary healthcare services and play an integral role in empowering patients and their families to take charge of their health and wellness. SHP practises Family Medicine, providing seamless, patient...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:157
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
M42 Health

M42 Health

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://m42.ae/
784/1000Fair

M42 is an Abu Dhabi-based, global tech-enabled healthcare company operating at the forefront of medical advancement. The company is seeking to transform lives through innovative clinical solutions that can solve the world’s most critical health and diagnostic challenges...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:16,168
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SingHealth Polyclinics

SingHealth Polyclinics

-
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
M42 Health

M42 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for SingHealth Polyclinics in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for M42 Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - SingHealth Polyclinics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SingHealth Polyclinics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - M42 Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M42 Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
SingHealth Polyclinics

SingHealth Polyclinics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
M42 Health

M42 Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics company and M42 Health company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics and M42 Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics and M42 Health, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - SingHealth Polyclinics or M42 Health ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - SingHealth Polyclinics or M42 Health ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics and M42 Health, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between SingHealth Polyclinics and M42 Health, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA