Comparison Overview

Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust

VS

Johnson & Johnson

Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust

Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, GB
Last Update: 2026-03-24

One of the largest Trusts in the UK, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust comprises five of the UK’s best known hospitals – Guy’s, St Thomas’, Evelina London Children’s Hospital, Royal Brompton and Harefield – as well as community services in Lambeth and Southwark, all with a long history of high quality care, clinical excellence, research and innovation. We work closely with a wide range of health and care partners to deliver the best care to our local population, and we play an active role in the integrated care systems (ICS) in south east and north west London. We have a long tradition of clinical and scientific achievement and – as part of King’s Health Partners – we are one of England’s eight academic health sciences centres (AHSCs), bringing together world-class clinical services, teaching and research. We are rated Good overall by the Care Quality Commission, and have one of the lowest mortality rates in the country. With around 23,700 staff, we are one of the largest employers locally. We aim to reflect the diversity of the local communities we serve and continue to develop new and existing partnerships with local people, patients, neighbouring NHS organisations, local authorities and charitable bodies and GPs. The dedication and skills of our employees lie at the heart of our organisation. We strive to recruit and retain the best staff to ensure that our services are high quality, safe and patient focused.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,299
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08903
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. Our strength in healthcare innovation empowers us to build a world where complex diseases are prevented, treated, and cured, where treatments are smarter and less invasive, and solutions are personal. Through our expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we are uniquely positioned to innovate across the full spectrum of healthcare solutions today to deliver the breakthroughs of tomorrow, and profoundly impact health for humanity. Learn more at https://www.jnj.com. Community Guidelines: http://www.jnj.com/social-media-community-guidelines

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 118,425
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/guys-and-st-thomas-nhs-foundation-trust.jpeg
Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust
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/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
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
Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Johnson & Johnson
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 Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust in 2026.

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

Johnson & Johnson has 40.85% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Johnson & Johnson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johnson & Johnson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/guys-and-st-thomas-nhs-foundation-trust.jpeg
Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/johnson-&-johnson.jpeg
Johnson & Johnson
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Stolen credentials from Infostealer malware (RedLine, Raccoon, Vidar)
Motivation: Unauthorized access to corporate systems, data exfiltration, potential financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Stolen employee credentials via infostealer malware
Motivation: Network intrusion, data exfiltration, potential ransomware deployment
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Johnson & Johnson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Johnson & Johnson company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company.

In the current year, Johnson & Johnson company has reported more cyber incidents than Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company.

Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Johnson & Johnson company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Johnson & Johnson company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Johnson & Johnson company and Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company nor Johnson & Johnson company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Johnson & Johnson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company.

Johnson & Johnson company employs more people globally than Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Guy's and St Thomas'​ NHS Foundation Trust nor Johnson & Johnson 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