Comparison Overview

Community Health Systems

VS

Ochsner Health

Community Health Systems

4000 Meridian Boulevard, Franklin, 37067, US
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 650 and 699

Community Health Systems is one of the nation’s leading healthcare providers. Developing and operating healthcare delivery systems across 14 states, CHS is committed to helping people get well and live healthier. CHS affiliates operate 70 acute-care hospitals and more than 1,000 other sites of care, including physician practices, urgent care centers, freestanding emergency departments, occupational medicine clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers and ambulatory surgery centers.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 24,576
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Ochsner Health

1514 Jefferson Highway, New Orleans, Louisiana, US, 70121
Last Update: 2026-03-29

Ochsner Health is the leading nonprofit healthcare provider in Louisiana, Mississippi and across the Gulf South, delivering expert care at its 47 hospitals and more than 370 health and urgent care centers. Ochsner is nationally recognized for inspiring healthier lives and stronger communities through expertise, quality and digital connectivity. In 2024, more than 40,000 dedicated team members and 4,900 employed and affiliated physicians at Ochsner cared for 1.6 million people from every state in the nation and 63 countries. To learn more about how Ochsner empowers people to get well and stay well, visit www.ochsner.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,501
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/community-health-systems.jpeg
Community Health Systems
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/ochsner-health-system-.jpeg
Ochsner 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
Community Health Systems
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ochsner 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 Community Health Systems in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Ochsner Health in 2026.

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

Community Health Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Ochsner Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/community-health-systems.jpeg
Community Health Systems
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Zero-day vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2014
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: External Criminal Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ochsner-health-system-.jpeg
Ochsner Health
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ochsner Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Community Health Systems company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Community Health Systems company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ochsner Health company has not reported any.

In the current year, Ochsner Health company and Community Health Systems company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Ochsner Health company nor Community Health Systems company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Community Health Systems company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Ochsner Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Community Health Systems company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ochsner Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Community Health Systems company nor Ochsner Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ochsner Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Community Health Systems company.

Community Health Systems company employs more people globally than Ochsner Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Community Health Systems nor Ochsner 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