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

Comparison Overview

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at JeffersonSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson
VS
UCSF HealthUCSF Health
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

233 S 10th St, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, US

Last Update: 26/04/2026

View Profile

The NCI-designated Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson has been a leader in oncology research, patient treatment, and cancer education for over 25 years. Our mission is to improve the lives of cancer patients and their families in the Greater Philadel...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:234
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UCSF Health

UCSF Health

505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, 94143, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ucsfhealth.org
725/1000Moderate

UCSF Health is an integrated health care network encompassing several entities, including UCSF Medical Center, one of the nation’s top 10 hospitals according to U.S. News & World Report, and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, with campuses in Oakland and San Francisco. ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:11,303
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

-
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
UCSF Health

UCSF 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 Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for UCSF Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

UCSF Health 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...
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UCSF Health

UCSF Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS157082025
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UCS658072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS212072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1