Comparison Overview

University Health Network

VS

Molina Healthcare

University Health Network

200 Elizabeth St., Toronto, Ontario, CA, M5G 2C4
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

University Health Network (UHN) is Canada's largest research hospital, which includes Toronto General and Toronto Western Hospitals, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and the Michener Institute for Education at UHN. The scope of research and complexity of cases at UHN has made it a national and international source for research, education and patient care. UHN is a research hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, with major research in cardiology, transplantation, neurosciences, oncology, surgical innovation, infectious diseases, genomic medicine and rehabilitation medicine. The Toronto General & Western Hospital Foundation, The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and Toronto Rehab Foundation allow us to fulfill our purpose by engaging our generous donor community and raising critical funds for research, education and improving the experience of our patients. Our Purpose: Transforming lives and communities through excellence in care, discovery and learning. Our Primary Value: The needs of patients come first. Our Values: Safety, compassion, teamwork, integrity and stewardship.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,291
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Molina Healthcare

200 Oceangate, Long Beach, 90802, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Molina Healthcare is a FORTUNE 500 company that is focused exclusively on government-sponsored health care programs for families and individuals who qualify for government sponsored health care. Molina Healthcare contracts with state governments and serves as a health plan providing a wide range of quality health care services to families and individuals. Molina Healthcare offers health plans in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Molina also offers a Medicare product and has been selected in several states to participate in duals demonstration projects to manage the care for those eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,475
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-health-network.jpeg
University Health Network
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/molina-healthcare.jpeg
Molina Healthcare
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
University Health Network
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Molina Healthcare
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 University Health Network in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Molina Healthcare in 2026.

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

University Health Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Molina Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Molina Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-health-network.jpeg
University Health Network
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/molina-healthcare.jpeg
Molina Healthcare
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2017
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of a Security Flaw
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat
Blog: Blog

FAQ

University Health Network company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Molina Healthcare company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Molina Healthcare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University Health Network company has not reported any.

In the current year, Molina Healthcare company and University Health Network company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Molina Healthcare company nor University Health Network company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Molina Healthcare company has disclosed at least one data breach, while University Health Network company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Molina Healthcare company nor University Health Network company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Molina Healthcare company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while University Health Network company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Molina Healthcare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University Health Network company.

Molina Healthcare company employs more people globally than University Health Network company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University Health Network nor Molina Healthcare 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