Comparison Overview
The University of Texas Medical Branch

The University of Texas Medical Branch
301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, US, 77550
Last Update: 06/09/2026
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...

OSF HealthCare
124 SW Adams St, Peoria, 61602, US
Last Update: 17/08/2026
OSF HealthCare is an integrated health system founded by The Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis and headquartered in Peoria, Illinois. The system includes 18 inpatient facilities encompassing 16 licensed hospitals, two of which operate dual campuses in separate c...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

The University of Texas Medical Branch







OSF HealthCare






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 vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for OSF HealthCare 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 - OSF HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)
OSF HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

The University of Texas Medical Branch

OSF HealthCare
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.