Comparison Overview

UCI Health

VS

OhioHealth

UCI Health

101 The City Dr S, None, Orange, California, US, 92868
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

UCI Health is committed to providing the highest quality healthcare to Orange County and surrounding communities through its world-class physicians, surgeons and clinical staff. UCI Health is the clinical enterprise of the University of California, Irvine. UC Irvine Medical Center, the main campus in Orange, California, features Orange County’s only National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center, high-risk perinatal/neonatal program, Level I trauma center and Level II pediatric trauma center. It is the primary teaching hospital for UCI School of Medicine. Learn more about UCI Health: ucihealth.org Job information: ucihealth.org/careers Volunteer information: ucihealth.org/volunteer

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 5,148
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

OhioHealth

3430 OhioHealth Parkway, Columbus, Ohio, US, 43202
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

OhioHealth is a nationally recognized, not-for-profit, faith-based health system of more than 35,000 associates, providers and volunteers. We lead with our mission to improve the health of those we serve throughout our 16 hospitals and 200+ urgent, primary and specialty care sites spanning 50 Ohio counties. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, we’re proud to be consistently recognized by FORTUNE as one of the “100 Best Companies to Work For” and rated a Top Hospital & Health System by Fair360 in 2024.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,532
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uc-irvine-medical-center.jpeg
UCI 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/ohiohealth.jpeg
OhioHealth
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
UCI Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
OhioHealth
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 UCI Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for OhioHealth in 2025.

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

UCI Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — OhioHealth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OhioHealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uc-irvine-medical-center.jpeg
UCI Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Motivation: Unethical Behavior
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2014
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Keystroke Logger (Malware)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2011
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Access Abuse
Motivation: Unknown (Potentially Unauthorized Curiosity or Malicious Intent)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ohiohealth.jpeg
OhioHealth
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

OhioHealth company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UCI Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UCI Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas OhioHealth company has not reported any.

In the current year, OhioHealth company and UCI Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither OhioHealth company nor UCI Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

UCI Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other OhioHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither OhioHealth company nor UCI Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UCI Health company nor OhioHealth company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither UCI Health company nor OhioHealth company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

OhioHealth company employs more people globally than UCI Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UCI Health nor OhioHealth 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