Comparison Overview

The University of Texas Medical Branch

VS

Amil

The University of Texas Medical Branch

301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, US, 77550
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

The first academic health center in Texas opened its doors in 1891 and today has four campuses, five health sciences schools, seven institutes for advanced study, a research enterprise that includes one of only two national laboratories dedicated to the safe study of infectious threats to human health, a Level 1 Trauma Center and a health system offering a full range of primary and specialized medical services throughout the Texas Gulf Coast region. UTMB is an institution in The University of Texas System and a member of the Texas Medical Center.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,743
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Amil

Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig de Campos, 105, Bloco B, São Paulo, 04711-905, BR
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

A Amil é uma empresa do setor de saúde que atua no Brasil combinando expertise e liderança para coordenar todos os agentes desse mercado - criando relações sustentáveis para conhecer e atender às necessidades de cada cliente e permitir que ele aproveite o melhor da vida. Diariamente, nos preocupamos em utilizar o melhor da nossa criatividade e foco, oferecendo transparência, eficiência, inovação e acolhimento tanto para a área na qual atuamos quanto aos nossos clientes e a sociedade em geral. Por isso, apresentamos diversas linhas de serviços. Líder no segmento premium, a Amil One alia conveniência e exclusividade para entregar a melhor experiência em saúde e bem-estar. Amil Fácil, criada com os conceitos de simplicidade, eficiência e cuidado, oferece planos regionais com excelente custo-benefício. Já a Amil Dental conta com uma ampla rede de dentistas, com acesso rápido e fácil, além de contratação totalmente online. Somos a operadora que mais inovou no setor de saúde, ajudando a moldar esse mercado no Brasil - e estamos dispostos a fazer com que esse setor funcione cada vez melhor para todos. ANS nº 326305 Siga-nos em nossas demais redes sociais: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amil Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/amilcuidadocerto/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/amilinstitucional TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@amil

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,437
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/utmb.jpeg
The University of Texas Medical Branch
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/amil.jpeg
Amil
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
The University of Texas Medical Branch
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Amil
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 The University of Texas Medical Branch in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Amil in 2026.

Incident History — The University of Texas Medical Branch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Texas Medical Branch cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Amil cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/utmb.jpeg
The University of Texas Medical Branch
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amil.jpeg
Amil
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Amil company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The University of Texas Medical Branch company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Amil company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The University of Texas Medical Branch company.

In the current year, Amil company and The University of Texas Medical Branch company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Amil company nor The University of Texas Medical Branch company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Amil company nor The University of Texas Medical Branch company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Amil company nor The University of Texas Medical Branch company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch company nor Amil company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Amil company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The University of Texas Medical Branch company.

The University of Texas Medical Branch company employs more people globally than Amil company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor Amil 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