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

Comparison Overview

UZ LeuvenUZ Leuven
VS
Baylor Scott & White HealthBaylor Scott & White Health
UZ Leuven

UZ Leuven

Herestraat 49, Leuven, 3000, BE

Last Update: 01/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.uzleuven.be
774/1000Fair

Topreferent zijn in patiëntenzorg. Opleiding geven aan artsen. Baanbrekend wetenschappelijk onderzoek verrichten. Dat zijn de drie hoofdopdrachten van UZ Leuven. In België en Europa spelen we een toonaangevende rol die we willen behouden en verder uitbouwen. Daarvoor bu...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:4,837
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

3500 Gaston Ave, Dallas, 75246, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://bswhealth.com
793/1000Fair

With us by your side, there's no stopping you. It's why we're creating a new kind of healthcare at Baylor Scott & White. And we're just getting started. As the largest not-for-profit health system in the state of Texas, Baylor Scott & White promotes the health and well...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:30,629
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UZ Leuven

UZ Leuven

-
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
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White 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 UZ Leuven in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Baylor Scott & White Health in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UZ Leuven (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UZ Leuven 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 - Baylor Scott & White Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baylor Scott & White 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...
UZ Leuven

UZ Leuven

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Baylor Scott & White Health

Baylor Scott & White Health

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9