Comparison Overview

Jefferson Health

VS

Beth Israel Lahey Health

Jefferson Health

130 South Ninth Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Thomas Jefferson University and Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals are partners in providing excellent clinical and compassionate care for our patients in the Philadelphia region, educating the health professionals of tomorrow in a variety of disciplines and discovering new knowledge that will define the future of clinical care. Thomas Jefferson University is dedicated to health sciences education and research.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 16,861
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Beth Israel Lahey Health

None
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Beth Israel Lahey Health is a new, integrated system providing patients with better care wherever they are. Care informed by world-class research and education. We are doctors and nurses, technicians and social workers, innovators and educators, and so many others. All with a shared vision for what health care can and should be.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 28,316
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thomas-jefferson-university-hospitals.jpeg
Jefferson 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/beth-israel-lahey-health.jpeg
Beth Israel Lahey 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
Compliance Summary
Jefferson Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Beth Israel Lahey Health
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 Jefferson Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Beth Israel Lahey Health in 2025.

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

Jefferson Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Beth Israel Lahey Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Beth Israel Lahey Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thomas-jefferson-university-hospitals.jpeg
Jefferson Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Email Accounts
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/beth-israel-lahey-health.jpeg
Beth Israel Lahey Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2014
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both Jefferson Health company and Beth Israel Lahey Health company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Jefferson Health and Beth Israel Lahey Health have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Beth Israel Lahey Health company and Jefferson Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Beth Israel Lahey Health company nor Jefferson Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Jefferson Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Beth Israel Lahey Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Beth Israel Lahey Health company and Jefferson Health company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Jefferson Health company nor Beth Israel Lahey Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Jefferson Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Beth Israel Lahey Health company.

Beth Israel Lahey Health company employs more people globally than Jefferson Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor Beth Israel Lahey Health 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