Comparison Overview

St. Luke's Health System

VS

BJC Health System

St. Luke's Health System

190 East Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho, US, 83712
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.stlukesonline.org

As the only Idaho-based, not-for-profit health system, St. Luke’s Health System is dedicated to our mission “To improve the health of people in the communities we serve.” Today that means not only treating you when you’re sick or hurt, but doing everything we can to help you be as healthy as possible. Working together, we share resources, skills, and knowledge to provide the best possible care, no matter which of our hospitals you choose. Each St. Luke’s Health System hospital is nationally recognized for excellence in patient care, with prestigious awards and designations reflecting the exceptional care that is synonymous with the St. Luke's name.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,947
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

BJC Health System

4901 Forest Park Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63108, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bjc.org

BJC Health System is one of the largest nonprofit health care organizations in the United States and the largest in the state of Missouri, serving urban, suburban, and rural communities across Missouri, southern Illinois, eastern Kansas, and the greater Midwest region. One of the largest employers in Missouri, BJC operates as BJC HealthCare in its Eastern Region and as Saint Luke’s Health System in its Western Region. BJC comprises 24 hospitals and hundreds of clinics and service organizations all committed to providing extraordinary patient care and advancing medical breakthroughs. BJC’s nationally recognized academic hospitals—Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children’s hospitals—are affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 27,424
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stlukeshealthsystem.jpeg
St. Luke's Health 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bjc-health-system.jpeg
BJC Health 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. Luke's Health System
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
BJC Health 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. Luke's Health System in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for BJC Health System in 2025.

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

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

Incident History — BJC Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BJC Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stlukeshealthsystem.jpeg
St. Luke's Health System
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bjc-health-system.jpeg
BJC Health System
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Configuration Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

St. Luke's Health System and BJC Health System have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, BJC Health System company and St. Luke's Health System company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither BJC Health System company nor St. Luke's Health System company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both BJC Health System company and St. Luke's Health System company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither BJC Health System company nor St. Luke's Health System company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither St. Luke's Health System company nor BJC Health System company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BJC Health System company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to St. Luke's Health System company.

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

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither St. Luke's Health System nor BJC Health System holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References