Comparison Overview

Henry Ford Health

VS

Michigan Medicine

Henry Ford Health

1 Ford Place, Detroit, MI, US, 48202
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

*Job seekers: please be aware of fraudulent job postings and phishing scams via LinkedIn. Henry Ford Health only contacts applicants through our human resources department and via a corporate email address. Here are some tips to be aware of: http://ow.ly/Kc0o50EKory Serving communities across Michigan and beyond, Henry Ford Health is committed to partnering with patients & members along their entire health journey. Henry Ford Health provides a full continuum of services – from primary and preventative care, to complex and specialty care, health insurance, a full suite of home health offerings, virtual care, pharmacy, eye care & other healthcare retail. It is one of the nation’s leading academic medical centers, recognized for clinical excellence in cancer care, cardiology and cardiovascular surgery, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopedics and sports medicine, and multi-organ transplants. Consistently ranked among the top five NIH-funded institutions in Michigan, Henry Ford Health engages in thousands of research projects annually. Equally committed to educating the next generation of health professionals, Henry Ford Health trains more than 4,000 medical students, residents and fellows every year across 50+ accredited programs. With more than 50,000 valued team members, Henry Ford Health is also among Michigan’s largest and most diverse employers. President and CEO Bob Riney leads the health system and serves a growing number of customers across more than 550 sites across Michigan. That includes: 13 acute care hospitals; 3 behavioral health facilities including two world-class addiction treatment centers; a state-of-the-art orthopedics and sports medicine facility; multiple cancer care destinations including the Brigitte Harris Cancer Pavilion, Henry Ford Health’s premier location in Detroit; & more options than ever for primary care for patients and families across the region.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 21,534
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Michigan Medicine

1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, 48109, US
Last Update: 2026-03-29

Michigan Medicine, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is part of one of the world’s leading universities. Michigan Medicine is a premier, highly ranked academic medical center and award-winning health care system with state-of-the-art facilities. Our vision is to create the future of health care through scientific discovery, innovations in education, and the most effective and compassionate care. We want to be the leader in health care, health care reform, and biomedical innovation. Michigan Medicine includes the U-M Hospitals and Health Centers; the U-M Medical School and its Faculty Group Practice; one of the nation's largest biomedical research communities; and education programs that train thousands of future health professionals and scientists each year. We were formerly known as the University of Michigan Medical Center; today that term applies generally to the collection of buildings on our main medical campus in Ann Arbor. We have a close partnership with the U-M School of Nursing and other health sciences schools at U-M. Through the Michigan Health Corporation, we are able to form partnerships outside of our University.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,370
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/henry-ford-health.jpeg
Henry Ford 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/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
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
Henry Ford Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Michigan Medicine
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 Henry Ford Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Michigan Medicine in 2026.

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

Henry Ford Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Michigan Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/henry-ford-health.jpeg
Henry Ford Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 02/2011
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Physical Loss
Motivation: Accidental
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-medicine.jpeg
Michigan Medicine
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Email Account
Motivation: Curiosity
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Henry Ford Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Michigan Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Michigan Medicine company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Henry Ford Health company.

In the current year, Michigan Medicine company and Henry Ford Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Michigan Medicine company nor Henry Ford Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Michigan Medicine company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Henry Ford Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Michigan Medicine company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Henry Ford Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Henry Ford Health company nor Michigan Medicine company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Michigan Medicine company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Henry Ford Health company.

Henry Ford Health company employs more people globally than Michigan Medicine company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Henry Ford Health nor Michigan Medicine 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