Comparison Overview

St. Luke's Health

VS

Massachusetts General Hospital

St. Luke's Health

6720 Bertner Ave., Houston, 77030, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

St. Luke’s Health, a member of CommonSpirit Health, is home to 16 hospitals in Texas that deliver excellent whole-person care with humankindness to the Brazos Valley, East Texas and Greater Houston. St. Luke's includes Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, the joint venture research and teaching hospital for Baylor College of Medicine. Home to the nationally accredited and NCI-designated Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, St. Luke’s delivers nationally-recognized care within a Christian ministry of healing. Social Media Privacy Policy: http://bit.ly/2fpll4B

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 2,787
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
4

Massachusetts General Hospital

55 Fruit Street, None, Boston, MA, US, 02114
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Guided by the needs of our patients and their families, Massachusetts General Hospital aims to deliver the very best health care in a safe, compassionate environment; to advance that care through innovative research and education; and, to improve the health and well-being of the diverse communities we serve. Visit our careers page! http://www.mghcareers.org

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,915
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st-luke's-health.jpeg
St. Luke's Health
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/massachusetts-general-hospital.jpeg
Massachusetts General Hospital
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
St. Luke's Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Massachusetts General Hospital
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for St. Luke's Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Massachusetts General Hospital in 2025.

Incident History — St. Luke's Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

St. Luke's Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Massachusetts General Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Massachusetts General Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st-luke's-health.jpeg
St. Luke's Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/massachusetts-general-hospital.jpeg
Massachusetts General Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Massachusetts General Hospital company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to St. Luke's Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

St. Luke's Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Massachusetts General Hospital company.

In the current year, Massachusetts General Hospital company and St. Luke's Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

St. Luke's Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Massachusetts General Hospital company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Massachusetts General Hospital company and St. Luke's Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

St. Luke's Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Massachusetts General Hospital company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither St. Luke's Health company nor Massachusetts General Hospital company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

St. Luke's Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Massachusetts General Hospital company.

Massachusetts General Hospital company employs more people globally than St. Luke's Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds HIPAA certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health nor Massachusetts General Hospital holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H