Comparison Overview

UPMC

VS

Owens & Minor

UPMC

US Steel Tower, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA, US, 15219
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

UPMC is a world-renowned, nonprofit health care provider and insurer committed to delivering exceptional, people-centered care and community services. Headquartered in Pittsburgh and affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Schools of the Health Sciences, UPMC is shaping the future of health through clinical and technological innovation, research, and education. Dedicated to advancing the well-being of our diverse communities, we provide nearly $2 billion annually in community benefits, more than any other health system in Pennsylvania. Our 100,000 employees — including more than 5,000 physicians — care for patients across more than 40 hospitals and 800 outpatient sites in Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, as well as overseas. UPMC Insurance Services covers more than 4 million members, providing the highest-quality care at the most affordable price. To learn more, visit UPMC.com.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 39,966
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Owens & Minor

9120 Lockwood Blvd, Mechanicsville, VA, 23116, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Owens & Minor, Inc. (NYSE: OMI) is a Fortune 500 global healthcare solutions company providing essential products and services that support care from the hospital to the home. For over 100 years, Owens & Minor and its affiliated brands, Apria® , Byram®, and HALYARD*, have helped to make each day better for the patients, providers, and communities we serve. Powered by more than 20,000 teammates worldwide, Owens & Minor delivers comfort and confidence behind the scenes so healthcare stays at the forefront. Owens & Minor exists because every day, everywhere, Life Takes Care™.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 12,606
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/upmc.jpeg
UPMC
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/owens-&-minor.jpeg
Owens & Minor
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
UPMC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Owens & Minor
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 UPMC in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Owens & Minor in 2025.

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

UPMC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Owens & Minor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Owens & Minor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/upmc.jpeg
UPMC
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2018
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/owens-&-minor.jpeg
Owens & Minor
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

UPMC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Owens & Minor company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UPMC and Owens & Minor have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Owens & Minor company and UPMC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Owens & Minor company nor UPMC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Owens & Minor company has disclosed at least one data breach, while UPMC company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Owens & Minor company nor UPMC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UPMC company nor Owens & Minor company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UPMC company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Owens & Minor company.

UPMC company employs more people globally than Owens & Minor company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UPMC nor Owens & Minor holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H