Comparison Overview

University Hospitals

VS

Inova Health

University Hospitals

University Hospitals, Cleveland, 44106, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

Founded in 1866, University Hospitals serves the needs of patients through an integrated network of 23 hospitals (including 5 joint ventures), more than 50 health centers and outpatient facilities, and over 200 physician offices in 16 counties throughout northern Ohio. The system’s flagship quaternary care, academic medical center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, is affiliated with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Oxford University and the Technion Israel Institute of Technology. The main campus also includes the UH Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, ranked among the top children’s hospitals in the nation; UH MacDonald Women's Hospital, Ohio's only hospital for women; and UH Seidman Cancer Center, part of the NCI-designated Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. UH is home to some of the most prestigious clinical and research programs in the nation, with more than 3,000 active clinical trials and research studies underway. UH Cleveland Medical Center is perennially among the highest performers in national ranking surveys, including “America’s Best Hospitals” from U.S. News & World Report. UH is also home to 19 Clinical Care Delivery and Research Institutes. UH is one of the largest employers in Northeast Ohio with more than 30,000 employees.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,860
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Inova Health

3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, Virginia, US, 22042
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

We are Inova, Northern Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area’s leading nonprofit healthcare provider. With expertise and compassion, we partner with our patients to help them stay healthy. We treat illness, heal injury and look at a patient’s whole health to help them flourish. Through our expansive network of hospitals, primary and specialty care practices, emergency and urgent care centers, and outpatient services, Inova provides care for more than 1 million unique patients every year. Total patient visits exceed 4 million annually, demonstrating our ability to deliver the best clinical care and ensuring a seamless experience for all who rely on us for their healthcare needs. Consistently ranked and recognized as a national healthcare leader in safety, quality and patient experience, Inova’s world-class care is made possible by the strength and breadth of our network, our 26,000 team members, our technology and our innovation. In 2025, Inova was named the Health System of the Year by Press Ganey, a national leader in healthcare experience, recognizing our excellence in patient care, team member engagement, and commitment to continuous improvement. Inova is home to Northern Virginia’s only Level 1 Trauma Center and Level 4 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and provides high-quality healthcare to each person in every community we are privileged to serve – regardless of ability to pay – every day of their life. More information about Inova can be found at www.inova.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,153
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
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/inovahealth.jpeg
Inova 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
University Hospitals
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Inova 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 University Hospitals in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Inova Health in 2026.

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

University Hospitals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Inova Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inovahealth.jpeg
Inova Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

University Hospitals company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Inova Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Inova Health company and University Hospitals company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Inova Health company nor University Hospitals company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University Hospitals company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Inova Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Inova Health company nor University Hospitals company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University Hospitals company nor Inova Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University Hospitals company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Inova Health company.

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

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Inova 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