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
UC San Diego HealthUC San Diego Health
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
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego Health

200 West Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA, US, 92103

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

UC San Diego Health and Health Sciences has been caring for the community for almost 60 years. In 1966, we established our first medical center. Two years later, in 1968, UC San Diego School of Medicine opened for business. Today, UC San Diego Health is the only acade...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:10,692
Subsidiaries:56
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

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
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego 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 Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis) in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for UC San Diego Health 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 - UC San Diego Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UC San Diego Health 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...
Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Ottobock Care (Wright & Filippis)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
WRI552072625
UC San Diego Health

UC San Diego Health

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS108072625
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UCS1014070724
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCS1016090725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9