Comparison Overview

UT Health East Texas

VS

AdventHealth

UT Health East Texas

1000 S Beckham Ave, Tyler, TX, 75701, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Representing the very best in healthcare, UT Health East Texas is comprised of 10 hospitals and more than 90 clinics across East Texas. With nearly 7,500 employees and over 1,000 licensed inpatient beds, UT Health East Texas provides healthcare services to thousands of patients annually through our hospitals, clinics, Level 1 trauma facility, air emergency fleet and EMS in a metropolitan service area of a quarter million people. With the support of Ardent Health Services and the University of Texas System, UT Health East Texas is uniquely positioned to provide patients with access to cutting-edge research and clinical therapies while training and educating the next generation of physicians and other health professionals. At UT Health East Texas, our mission is to care for people — our patients, their families and each other. We do so while educating and developing the caregivers of the future.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 2,711
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

AdventHealth

900 Hope Way, None, Altamonte Springs, FL, US, 32714
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

AdventHealth is a connected network of care that helps people feel whole – body, mind and spirit. More than 100,000 team members across a national footprint provide whole-person care to nearly nine million people annually through more than 2,000 care sites that include hospitals, physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, outpatient clinics, home health agencies, hospice centers, the AdventHealth app and more. Our wholistic approach to improving the health and prosperity of our communities is inspired by our mission to extend the healing ministry of Christ. ​

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 36,206
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ut-health-east-texas.jpeg
UT Health East Texas
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/adventhealth.jpeg
AdventHealth
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
UT Health East Texas
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AdventHealth
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 UT Health East Texas in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for AdventHealth in 2025.

Incident History — UT Health East Texas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UT Health East Texas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

AdventHealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ut-health-east-texas.jpeg
UT Health East Texas
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adventhealth.jpeg
AdventHealth
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

AdventHealth company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to UT Health East Texas company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UT Health East Texas company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas AdventHealth company has not reported any.

In the current year, AdventHealth company and UT Health East Texas company have not reported any cyber incidents.

UT Health East Texas company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while AdventHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

UT Health East Texas company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other AdventHealth company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither AdventHealth company nor UT Health East Texas company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UT Health East Texas company nor AdventHealth company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UT Health East Texas company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to AdventHealth company.

AdventHealth company employs more people globally than UT Health East Texas company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UT Health East Texas nor AdventHealth 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