Comparison Overview

Bon Secours Mercy Health

VS

Encompass Health

Bon Secours Mercy Health

Cincinnati, 45237, US
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

On September 1, 2018 Bon Secours Health System and Mercy Health combined to become the United States’ fifth largest Catholic health care ministry and one of the nation’s 20 largest health care systems. With 48 hospitals, thousands of providers, over 1,000 points of care and over 60,000 employees Bon Secours Mercy Health serves communities across seven states and Ireland. We are dedicated to continually improving health care quality, safety and cost effectiveness. Our hospitals, care sites and clinicians are recognized for clinical and operational excellence. By utilizing robust measurement and reporting processes, we hold ourselves accountable for enhancing care and improving outcomes for our patients, residents and clients.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 31,593
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Encompass Health

9001 Liberty Pkwy, Birmingham, 35242, US
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

Encompass Health is the largest owner and operator of rehabilitation hospitals in the United States. With a national footprint that includes more than 170 hospitals in 39 states and Puerto Rico, the Company provides high-quality, compassionate rehabilitative care for patients recovering from a major injury or illness, using advanced technology and innovative treatments to maximize recovery. Encompass Health is ranked as one of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For and Modern Healthcare’s Best Places to Work in Healthcare.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,718
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bon-secours-mercy-health-system.jpeg
Bon Secours Mercy Health
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/encompasshealth.jpeg
Encompass Health
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
Bon Secours Mercy Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Encompass Health
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 Bon Secours Mercy Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Encompass Health in 2026.

Incident History — Bon Secours Mercy Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bon Secours Mercy Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Encompass Health (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Encompass Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bon-secours-mercy-health-system.jpeg
Bon Secours Mercy Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Invoice Printing Error
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2016
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Exposure (Misconfigured Internet-Accessible Files)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/encompasshealth.jpeg
Encompass Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Encompass Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bon Secours Mercy Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Bon Secours Mercy Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Encompass Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Encompass Health company and Bon Secours Mercy Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Encompass Health company nor Bon Secours Mercy Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Bon Secours Mercy Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Encompass Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Encompass Health company nor Bon Secours Mercy Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health company nor Encompass Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Bon Secours Mercy Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Encompass Health company.

Bon Secours Mercy Health company employs more people globally than Encompass Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bon Secours Mercy Health nor Encompass Health 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