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

Comparison Overview

The University of Texas Medical BranchThe University of Texas Medical Branch
VS
Cardinal HealthCardinal Health
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, US, 77550

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://utmb.jobs
780/1000Fair

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 in...

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
Cardinal Health

Cardinal Health

7000 Cardinal Place, Dublin, OH, US, 43017

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://cardinalhealth.com
822/1000Good

Cardinal Health is a distributor of pharmaceuticals and specialty products; a supplier of home-health and direct-to-patient products and services; an operator of nuclear pharmacies and manufacturing facilities; a provider of performance and data solutions; and a global ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:34,491
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

-
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
Cardinal Health

Cardinal Health

-
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 The University of Texas Medical Branch in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cardinal Health in 2026.

Incidents

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.

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

Incident History - Cardinal Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cardinal Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cardinal Health

Cardinal Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3