Comparison Overview

UCHealth

VS

UCSF Health

UCHealth

12401 E. 17th Avenue, Aurora, 80045, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

At UCHealth, we do things differently. We strive to promote individual and community health and leave no question unanswered along the way. We’re driven to improve and optimize health care. Our network of nationally-recognized hospitals, clinic locations and health care providers extends throughout Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. We deliver excellent care close to home, no matter where you might live. Our success is defined by more than our patient volumes or treatment outcomes. It’s about building a team of exceptional people, from our clinical staff to our expert physicians, who consistently do what is right for the individuals we are honored to serve. UCHealth, a 501(c) (3) health system, was formed in 2012 to increase access to innovative and advanced patient care, realize supply chain and IT efficiencies, and to better serve patients throughout the Rocky Mountain region by combining academic-based and community-focused medicine. Together, the clinics and hospitals within UCHealth can offer the most advanced treatments to improve the lives of patients and their families in Colorado and beyond.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 22,782
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

UCSF Health

505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, 94143, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

UCSF Health is an integrated health care network encompassing several entities, including UCSF Medical Center, one of the nation’s top 10 hospitals according to U.S. News & World Report, and UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals, with campuses in Oakland and San Francisco. We are recognized throughout the world for our innovative patient care, advanced technology and pioneering research. For more than a century, we have offered the highest quality medical treatment. Today, our expertise covers virtually all specialties, from cancer to women's health. In addition, the compassionate care provided by our doctors, nurses and other staff is a key to our success. Our services generate about 1.1 million patient visits to our clinics a year and $3.2 billion in annual revenue. We have 12,000 employees and dozens of locations throughout San Francisco as well as outreach clinics throughout Northern California and beyond.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,303
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
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/ucsfhealth.jpeg
UCSF 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
UCHealth
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
UCSF 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 UCHealth in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for UCSF Health in 2026.

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

UCHealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

UCSF Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uchealth.jpeg
UCHealth
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access to Diligent Software
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ucsfhealth.jpeg
UCSF Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2013
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft
Motivation: Unknown
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

UCSF Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UCHealth company.

In the current year, UCSF Health company and UCHealth company have not reported any cyber incidents.

UCSF Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while UCHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both UCSF Health company and UCHealth company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither UCSF Health company nor UCHealth company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UCHealth company nor UCSF Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UCHealth nor UCSF Health holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N