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

Comparison Overview

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)
VS
Hapvida NotreDame IntermédicaHapvida NotreDame Intermédica
Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

2845 Crooks Road, None, Rochester Hills, Michigan, US, 48309

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.FirstToServe.com
720/1000Moderate

Since 1944, Wright & Filippis has built a well-earned reputation as a leader in prosthetics, orthotics, custom mobility products and accessibility solutions. We are over 70 years strong, and now more than ever we are reminded of our ongoing commitment to improve the li...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:258
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Av. Paulista 867, São Paulo, 01311-100, BR

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www2.hapvida.com.br
762/1000Fair

Com 80 anos de experiência, a Hapvida é hoje a maior empresa de saúde integrada da América Latina. A companhia, que possui mais de 73 mil colaboradores, atende 16 milhões de beneficiários de saúde e odontologia espalhados pelas cinco regiões do Brasil. Todo o aparato ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:40,320
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

-
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
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

-
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 Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica 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...
Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
WRI552072625
Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) company and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) or Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) or Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) and Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, 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