Comparison Overview

Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP

VS

GE HealthCare

Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP

55, Boulevard Diderot, Paris, 75012, FR
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

AP-HP (Greater Paris University Hospitals) is a European world-renowned university hospital. Its 39 hospitals treat 8 million people every year: in consultation, emergency, during scheduled or home hospitalizations. The AP-HP provides a public health service for everyone, 24 hours a day. This mission is a duty as well as a great source of pride. AP-HP is the leading employer in the Greater Paris area: 100.000 staff members – doctors, researchers, paramedical staff, administrative personnel and workers – work there.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 37,495
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

GE HealthCare

-, Chicago, US
Last Update: 2026-03-27
Between 800 and 849

Every day millions of people feel the impact of our intelligent devices, advanced analytics and artificial intelligence. As a leading global medical technology and digital solutions innovator, GE HealthCare enables clinicians to make faster, more informed decisions through intelligent devices, data analytics, applications and services, supported by its Edison intelligence platform. With over 100 years of healthcare industry experience and around 50,000 employees globally, the company operates at the center of an ecosystem working toward precision health, digitizing healthcare, helping drive productivity and improve outcomes for patients, providers, health systems and researchers around the world. We embrace a culture of respect, transparency, integrity and diversity and we work to create a world where healthcare has no limits.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 59,503
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ap-hp.jpeg
Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
GE HealthCare
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for GE HealthCare in 2026.

Incident History — Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — GE HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GE HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ap-hp.jpeg
Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

GE HealthCare company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, GE HealthCare company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company.

In the current year, GE HealthCare company and Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither GE HealthCare company nor Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither GE HealthCare company nor Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither GE HealthCare company nor Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company nor GE HealthCare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

GE HealthCare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company.

GE HealthCare company employs more people globally than Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Greater Paris University Hospitals - AP-HP nor GE HealthCare holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N