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

Comparison Overview

Medford Radiology Group, P.C.Medford Radiology Group, P.C.
VS
NYC Health + HospitalsNYC Health + Hospitals
Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

842 E. Main St, Medford, 97504, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

MRG is a radiology physician practice located in Medford, OR. MRG has twenty four physicians that provide diagnostic and interventional radiology services to referring physician and health care providers, hospitals, clinics and and imaging centers in the southern Orego...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:30
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
NYC Health + Hospitals

NYC Health + Hospitals

50 Water St., New York, NY, US, 10004

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
629/1000Poor

NYC Health + Hospitals is the nation’s largest public health care delivery system. We are an integrated network of hospitals, trauma centers, neighborhood health centers, nursing homes, and post-acute care centers. We are a home care agency and a health plan, MetroPlus....

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:15,924
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

-
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
NYC Health + Hospitals

NYC Health + Hospitals

-
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 Medford Radiology Group, P.C. in 2026.

Incidents

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

NYC Health + Hospitals has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Medford Radiology Group, P.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medford Radiology Group, P.C. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - NYC Health + Hospitals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NYC Health + Hospitals 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...
Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

Medford Radiology Group, P.C.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MED22374623
NYC Health + Hospitals

NYC Health + Hospitals

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NYC1774664917
🔒 Incident : Breach
NYC1773398395
🔒 Incident : Breach
NYC1779194396

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8