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

Comparison Overview

Texas Hearing InstituteTexas Hearing Institute
VS
Sutter HealthSutter Health
Texas Hearing Institute

Texas Hearing Institute

3100 Shenandoah St, Houston, 77021, US

Last Update: 30/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.texashearing.org
664/1000Weak

Texas Hearing Institute, formerly known as The Center for Hearing and Speech, is the most comprehensive resource for pediatric hearing loss in Texas and the only facility in the region to offer audiology, speech pathology, and spoken language education under one roof. ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:72
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Sutter Health

Sutter Health

2200 River Plaza Drive, Sacramento, 95833, US

Last Update: 23/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.sutterhealth.org
614/1000Poor

Sutter Health is a not-for-profit, people-centered healthcare system providing comprehensive care throughout California. Sutter Health is committed to innovative, high-quality patient care and community partnerships, and innovative, high-quality patient care. Today, Sut...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:26,775
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Texas Hearing Institute

Texas Hearing Institute

-
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
Sutter Health

Sutter 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)

Texas Hearing Institute has 27.54% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Sutter Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Texas Hearing Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Hearing Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Sutter 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...
Texas Hearing Institute

Texas Hearing Institute

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TEX1782830481
Sutter Health

Sutter Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SUT1765814693
🔒 Incident : Breach
SUTCAM1782210474
🔒 Incident : Breach
SUT44271123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9