Comparison Overview

Region Hovedstaden

VS

Duke University Health System

Region Hovedstaden

Kongens Vaenge 2, Hillerod, 3400, DK
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 750 and 799

Det handler om liv. Om at bringe liv til verden og skabe livskvalitet. Om at redde liv og forbedre liv. Som medarbejder i Region Hovedstaden træder du ind i en verden af muligheder og mangfoldighed med plads til dine ambitioner. Du er en del af et stærkt fagligt miljø, hvor vi har fingeren på pulsen og gør hinanden bedre. Det er noget af det, vi gerne vil vise dig på Region Hovedstadens LinkedIn-profil. Gå ind på www.regionh.dk/job og læs mere om jobmulighederne.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 23,626
Subsidiaries: 20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Duke University Health System

2301 Erwin Road, Durham, 27710, US
Last Update: 2026-03-23
Between 750 and 799

As a world-class academic and health care system, Duke Health strives to transform medicine and health locally and globally through innovative scientific research, rapid translation of breakthrough discoveries, educating future clinical and scientific leaders, advocating and practicing evidence-based medicine to improve community health, and leading efforts to eliminate health inequalities.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,769
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/regionhovedstaden.jpeg
Region Hovedstaden
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/duke-university-health-system.jpeg
Duke University Health System
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
Region Hovedstaden
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Duke University Health System
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 Region Hovedstaden in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Duke University Health System in 2026.

Incident History — Region Hovedstaden (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Region Hovedstaden cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Duke University Health System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Duke University Health System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/regionhovedstaden.jpeg
Region Hovedstaden
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/duke-university-health-system.jpeg
Duke University Health System
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Region Hovedstaden company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Duke University Health System company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Duke University Health System company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Region Hovedstaden company.

In the current year, Duke University Health System company and Region Hovedstaden company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Duke University Health System company nor Region Hovedstaden company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Duke University Health System company nor Region Hovedstaden company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Duke University Health System company nor Region Hovedstaden company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Region Hovedstaden company nor Duke University Health System company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Region Hovedstaden company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Duke University Health System company.

Region Hovedstaden company employs more people globally than Duke University Health System company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Region Hovedstaden nor Duke University Health System 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