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

Comparison Overview

Unimed Patos de MinasUnimed Patos de Minas
VS
Aetna, a CVS Health CompanyAetna, a CVS Health Company
Unimed Patos de Minas

Unimed Patos de Minas

Avenida Brasil 966, Patos de Minas, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

Responda à pesquisa de Satisfação Beneficiários Unimed: https://hazo.me/idss_pato_23 1990, esse é o ano em que a história da Unimed Patos de Minas começa. Um grupo de 23 médicos propõem a implantação da cooperativa que, em 2023, completou 35 anos cobrindo sonhos de mai...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:213
Subsidiaries:82
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aetna, a CVS Health Company

Aetna, a CVS Health Company

151 Farmington Avenue, Hartford, 06156, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://aetna.com
715/1000Moderate

Here at Aetna, a CVS Health® company, we’re building a healthier world by making health care easy, affordable and all about you. Because Healthier Happens Together™! Follow our page for company news, industry commentary, jobs and more. Founded in 1853 in Hartford, CT, A...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:40,685
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Unimed Patos de Minas

Unimed Patos de Minas

-
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
Aetna, a CVS Health Company

Aetna, a CVS Health Company

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Unimed Patos de Minas in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aetna, a CVS Health Company in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Unimed Patos de Minas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Unimed Patos de Minas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Aetna, a CVS Health Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aetna, a CVS Health Company 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...
Unimed Patos de Minas

Unimed Patos de Minas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aetna, a CVS Health Company

Aetna, a CVS Health Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AET1766440692
🔒 Incident : Breach
AET411072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2