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

Comparison Overview

UT Southwestern Radiation OncologyUT Southwestern Radiation Oncology
VS
Mayo ClinicMayo Clinic
UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

2280 Inwood Rd, Dallas, 75390, US

Last Update: 13/12/2025

View Profile

The mission of our Department is three-fold: to deliver world-class care on a daily basis to our patients using the most advanced technologies available; to conduct groundbreaking basic, translational and clinical research; and to provide quality education to the next g...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

200 First St. S.W., Rochester, 55905, US

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mayoclinic.org
718/1000Moderate

Mayo Clinic has expanded and changed in many ways, but our values remain true to the vision of our founders. Our primary value – The needs of the patient come first – guides our plans and decisions as we create the future of health care. Join us and you'll find a cultur...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:48,983
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

-
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
Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

-
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 Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology in 2026.

Incidents

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

Mayo Clinic has 92.31% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Mayo Clinic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mayo Clinic 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...
UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

UT Southwestern Radiation Oncology

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MAYSOLHONBAS1770310511
🔒 Incident : Breach
XSOHONADVMAY1780958028

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1