Comparison Overview

City of Hope

VS

Medical University of South Carolina

City of Hope

1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, US, 91010
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 700 and 749

City of Hope's mission is to deliver the cures of tomorrow to the people who need them today. Founded in 1913, City of Hope has grown into one of the largest cancer research and treatment organizations in the U.S. and one of the leading research centers for diabetes and other life-threatening illnesses. City of Hope research has been the basis for numerous breakthrough cancer medicines, as well as human synthetic insulin and monoclonal antibodies. With an independent, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center at its core, City of Hope brings a uniquely integrated model to patients spanning cancer care, research and development, academics and training, and innovation initiatives. City of Hope’s growing national system includes its Los Angeles campus, a network of clinical care locations across Southern California, a new cancer center in Orange County, California, and treatment facilities in Atlanta, Chicago and Phoenix. City of Hope’s affiliated group of organizations includes Translational Genomics Research Institute and AccessHope™.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 12,192
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Medical University of South Carolina

45 Courtenay Drive,, MSC 203, Charleston, sc, US, 29425
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) is a public institution of higher learning the purpose of which is to preserve and optimize human life in South Carolina and beyond. The university provides an interprofessional environment for learning and discovery through education of health care professionals and biomedical scientists, research in the health sciences and provision of comprehensive health care.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,335
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/city-of-hope.jpeg
City of Hope
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/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
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
City of Hope
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Medical University of South Carolina
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 City of Hope in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Medical University of South Carolina in 2026.

Incident History — City of Hope (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Hope cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Medical University of South Carolina (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medical University of South Carolina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/city-of-hope.jpeg
City of Hope
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/medical-university-of-south-carolina.jpeg
Medical University of South Carolina
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Medical University of South Carolina company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to City of Hope company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

City of Hope company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported any.

In the current year, Medical University of South Carolina company and City of Hope company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Medical University of South Carolina company nor City of Hope company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

City of Hope company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported such incidents publicly.

City of Hope company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Medical University of South Carolina company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither City of Hope company nor Medical University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

City of Hope company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Medical University of South Carolina company.

Medical University of South Carolina company employs more people globally than City of Hope company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina holds HIPAA certification.

Neither City of Hope nor Medical University of South Carolina 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