Comparison Overview

The University of Texas Medical Branch

VS

BJC Health System

The University of Texas Medical Branch

301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, 77550, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH: Texas' first academic health center opened its doors in 1891 and today has four campuses, five health sciences schools, six 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: 11,065
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

BJC Health System

4901 Forest Park Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63108, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

BJC Health System is one of the largest nonprofit health care organizations in the United States and the largest in the state of Missouri, serving urban, suburban, and rural communities across Missouri, southern Illinois, eastern Kansas, and the greater Midwest region. One of the largest employers in Missouri, BJC operates as BJC HealthCare in its Eastern Region and as Saint Luke’s Health System in its Western Region. BJC comprises 24 hospitals and hundreds of clinics and service organizations all committed to providing extraordinary patient care and advancing medical breakthroughs. BJC’s nationally recognized academic hospitals—Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children’s hospitals—are affiliated with Washington University School of Medicine.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 27,424
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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/bjc-health-system.jpeg
BJC Health System
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
BJC Health System
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 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for BJC Health System in 2025.

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 — BJC Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BJC Health System 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/bjc-health-system.jpeg
BJC Health System
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Configuration Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

BJC Health System 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.

BJC Health System company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The University of Texas Medical Branch company has not reported any.

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

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

BJC Health System company has disclosed at least one data breach, while The University of Texas Medical Branch company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BJC Health System company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The University of Texas Medical Branch company.

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

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor BJC Health System 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