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 Simmons Cancer CenterUT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center
VS
Mass General BrighamMass General Brigham
UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center

UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center

2201 Inwood Road, Dallas, 75390, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
763/1000Fair

UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center is the only NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in North Texas.

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
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

399 Revolution Dr, Somerville, Massachusetts, US, 02145

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
735/1000Moderate

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, commun...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:13,230
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center

UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center

-
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
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

-
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 Simmons Cancer Center in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Mass General Brigham in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center 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 - Mass General Brigham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mass General Brigham 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 Simmons Cancer Center

UT Southwestern Simmons Cancer Center

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS548072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAS844072325

FAQ

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