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

Comparison Overview

UNC Health PardeeUNC Health Pardee
VS
Houston MethodistHouston Methodist
UNC Health Pardee

UNC Health Pardee

800 North Justice Street, Hendersonville, 28791, US

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
765/1000Fair

UNC Health Pardee is a not-for-profit healthcare system that is managed by UNC Health. Founded first as Henderson County Hospital Corporation with the creation of Patton Memorial Hospital in 1913, it was later expanded as Margaret R. Pardee Memorial Hospital in 1953 to...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:866
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

6565 Fannin St, Houston, 77030, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
719/1000Moderate

Houston Methodist is one of the nation’s leading health systems and academic medical centers. The health system consists of eight hospitals: Houston Methodist Hospital, its flagship academic hospital in the Texas Medical Center, seven community hospitals and one long-te...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:21,373
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UNC Health Pardee

UNC Health Pardee

-
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
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

-
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 UNC Health Pardee in 2026.

Incidents

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

Houston Methodist has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

UNC Health Pardee cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Houston Methodist (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Houston Methodist 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...
UNC Health Pardee

UNC Health Pardee

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Houston Methodist

Houston Methodist

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HOULEN1769632931
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
HOU115424722

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9