Comparison Overview

St. John's Riverside Hospital

VS

University of Maryland Medical System

St. John's Riverside Hospital

967 North Broadway, Yonkers, 10701, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20

St. John's Riverside Hospital is a leader in providing the highest quality, compassionate health care utilizing the latest, state-of-the-art medical technology. Serving Yonkers to the Rivertown communities of Hastings-on-Hudson, Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry and Irvington, St. John's Riverside has been and continues to be a unique and comprehensive network of medical professionals dedicated to a tradition of service that spans generations. •superior medical care •dedicated nursing staff •the latest in medical technology and minimally invasive surgeries •highly skilled surgeons, doctors, technicians and counselors •the best in preventative medicine Here at St. John’s, we are committed to making life better for our patients. Our community and lifestyles have gone through many changes and likewise St. John's has evolved in response to these changes. We continue to elevate the services we provide with the goal of increasing the quality of life for all who entrust St. John's Riverside Hospital to their care. St. John's most recent developments have result in: •expedited admission time •expanded and improved emergency rooms and wait times •new, private maternity suites •the addition of industry-leading specialists in all areas of medicine and surgery We've been an integral part of your community since the 1869 and our commitment to provide you with the most advanced medical services available continues to be St. John's vision, mission and value. St. John's Riverside Hospital built itself around an early foundation of nursing and community service. In 1894, the Cochran School of Nursing, the oldest hospital-based school of nursing in the metropolitan area, was founded, thus making the St. John's Nursing Staff more than just the backbone of the hospital, but the heart and soul. Our dedicated nurses give superior attention to those who need it most with a strong emphasis on patient and family-focused nursing care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 1,206
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

University of Maryland Medical System

22 S. Greene St, Baltimore, MD, US, 21201
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

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 part of the state and beyond. UMMS is a national and regional referral center for trauma, cancer care, neurocare, cardiac care, women's and children's health and physical rehabilitation. It also has one of the world's largest kidney transplant programs, as well as scores of other programs that improve the physical and mental health of thousands of people daily. The hospitals and health systems that comprise UMMS are: University of Maryland Medical Center University of Maryland Medical Center Midtown Campus UM Rehabilitation and Orthopaedic Institute UM Baltimore Washington Medical Center UM Capital Region Health UM Charles Regional Medical Center UM St. Joseph Medical Center UM Upper Chesapeake Health UM Shore Regional Health Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital UM Community Medical Group

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,262
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st.-john's-riverside-hospital.jpeg
St. John's Riverside 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ummedicalsystem.jpeg
University of Maryland Medical System
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. John's Riverside Hospital
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Maryland Medical System
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. John's Riverside Hospital in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — St. John's Riverside Hospital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

St. John's Riverside Hospital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st.-john's-riverside-hospital.jpeg
St. John's Riverside Hospital
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ummedicalsystem.jpeg
University of Maryland Medical System
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Maryland Medical System company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to St. John's Riverside Hospital company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

St. John's Riverside Hospital company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Maryland Medical System company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Maryland Medical System company and St. John's Riverside Hospital company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Maryland Medical System company nor St. John's Riverside Hospital company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

St. John's Riverside Hospital company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other University of Maryland Medical System company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Maryland Medical System company nor St. John's Riverside Hospital company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital company nor University of Maryland Medical System company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Maryland Medical System company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to St. John's Riverside Hospital company.

University of Maryland Medical System company employs more people globally than St. John's Riverside Hospital company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither St. John's Riverside Hospital nor University of Maryland Medical System holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N