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

Comparison Overview

Singing River Health SystemSinging River Health System
VS
University of Maryland Medical SystemUniversity of Maryland Medical System
Singing River Health System

Singing River Health System

3109 Bienville Blvd, Ocean Springs, 39564, US

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
542/1000Critical

Singing River offers award-winning, comprehensive care for every age and stage. As one of South Mississippi's largest employers and proudly recognized on the Forbes list of America’s Best-In-State Employers, we are committed to the highest quality standards and attracti...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:1,735
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

22 S. Greene St, Baltimore, 21201, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.umms.org
781/1000Fair

The University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) was created in 1984 when the state-owned University Hospital became a private, nonprofit organization. It has evolved into a multi-hospital system with academic, community and specialty service missions reaching every par...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,445
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Singing River Health System

Singing River Health System

-
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
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

-
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 Singing River Health System in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for University of Maryland Medical System in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Singing River Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Singing River Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - University of Maryland Medical System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Maryland Medical System 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...
Singing River Health System

Singing River Health System

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SIN1779316156
🔒 Incident : Breach
SIN002121524
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SIN906072525
University of Maryland Medical System

University of Maryland Medical System

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2