Comparison Overview

UNC Health

VS

Piedmont

UNC Health

101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, 27516, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.unchealth.org/

Our mission is to improve the health and well-being of North Carolinians and others whom we serve. We accomplish this by providing leadership and excellence in the interrelated areas of patient care, education and research. UNC Health and its 33,000 employees, continue to serve as North Carolina’s Health Care System, caring for patients from all 100 counties and beyond our borders. We continue to leverage the world class research conducted in the UNC School of Medicine, translating that innovation to life-saving and life-changing therapies, procedures, and techniques for the patients who rely on us. General terms of service for UNC Health social media: https://www.facebook.com/unchealthcare/about_details

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,216
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Piedmont

1968 Peachtree Road NW, None, Atlanta, Georgia, US, 30309
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.piedmont.org

At Piedmont, we deliver healthcare marked by compassion and sustainable excellence in a progressive environment, guided by physicians, delivered by exceptional professionals and inspired by the communities we serve. Piedmont is a not-for-profit, community health system comprised of 25 hospitals and 37,000+ employees. Since the beginning, Piedmont has been a pioneer in patient care, fulfilling the health care needs of Atlanta residents and the surrounding communities. Today - more than 110 years since it was founded - Piedmont is known as a leading hospital system in cancer care, treatment of heart disease and organ transplantation. For more information, visit piedmont.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,765
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/unchealth.jpeg
UNC 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/piedmonthealth.jpeg
Piedmont
—
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
UNC Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Piedmont
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 UNC Health in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Piedmont in 2025.

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

UNC Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Piedmont cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unchealth.jpeg
UNC Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/piedmonthealth.jpeg
Piedmont
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Piedmont company and UNC Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Piedmont company nor UNC Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither Piedmont company nor UNC Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UNC Health company nor Piedmont company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UNC Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Piedmont company.

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

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Piedmont holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References