Comparison Overview

Jefferson Health

VS

GE HealthCare

Jefferson Health

130 South Ninth Street, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19107
Last Update: 2026-03-23
Between 750 and 799

Thomas Jefferson University and Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals are partners in providing excellent clinical and compassionate care for our patients in the Philadelphia region, educating the health professionals of tomorrow in a variety of disciplines and discovering new knowledge that will define the future of clinical care. Thomas Jefferson University is dedicated to health sciences education and research.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 18,267
Subsidiaries: 14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

GE HealthCare

-, Chicago, US
Last Update: 2026-03-27
Between 800 and 849

Every day millions of people feel the impact of our intelligent devices, advanced analytics and artificial intelligence. As a leading global medical technology and digital solutions innovator, GE HealthCare enables clinicians to make faster, more informed decisions through intelligent devices, data analytics, applications and services, supported by its Edison intelligence platform. With over 100 years of healthcare industry experience and around 50,000 employees globally, the company operates at the center of an ecosystem working toward precision health, digitizing healthcare, helping drive productivity and improve outcomes for patients, providers, health systems and researchers around the world. We embrace a culture of respect, transparency, integrity and diversity and we work to create a world where healthcare has no limits.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 59,503
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jefferson-health.jpeg
Jefferson 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/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
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
Jefferson Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
GE HealthCare
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 Jefferson Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for GE HealthCare in 2026.

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

Jefferson Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — GE HealthCare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GE HealthCare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jefferson-health.jpeg
Jefferson Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gehealthcare.jpeg
GE HealthCare
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

GE HealthCare company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jefferson Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Jefferson Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas GE HealthCare company has not reported any.

In the current year, GE HealthCare company and Jefferson Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither GE HealthCare company nor Jefferson Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Jefferson Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other GE HealthCare company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Jefferson Health company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while GE HealthCare company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Jefferson Health company nor GE HealthCare company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

GE HealthCare company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Jefferson Health company.

GE HealthCare company employs more people globally than Jefferson Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jefferson Health nor GE HealthCare 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