Comparison Overview

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG

VS

Allina Health

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG

1 Schlossplatz, Bad Neustadt an der Saale, DE, 97616
Last Update: 2026-03-28

Die RHÖN‐KLINIKUM AG ist einer der größten Gesundheitsdienstleister in Deutschland. Die Kliniken bieten exzellente Medizin mit direkter Anbindung zu Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen. An den fünf Standorten Campus Bad Neustadt, Klinikum Frankfurt (Oder), Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Universitätsklinikum Marburg (UKGM) sowie der Zentralklinik Bad Berka werden jährlich rund 855.000 Patienten behandelt. Über 18.100 Mitarbeitende sind im Unternehmen beschäftigt. Das innovative RHÖN-Campus-Konzept für eine sektorenübergreifende und zukunftsweisende Gesundheitsversorgung im ländlichen Raum, die konsequente Fortsetzung des schrittweisen digitalen Wandels im Unternehmen sowie die strategische Partnerschaft mit Asklepios sind wichtige Säulen der Unternehmensstrategie. Die RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG ist ein eigenständiges Unternehmen unter dem Dach der Asklepios Kliniken GmbH & Co. KGaA.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 335
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Allina Health

The Commons at Midtown Exchange, 2925 Chicago Ave., Minneapolis, MN, US, 55407
Last Update: 2026-03-29

People at Allina Health have a career of making a difference in the lives of the millions of patients we see each year at our 90+ clinics, 12 hospitals and through a wide variety of specialty care services in Minnesota and western Wisconsin. We’re a not-for-profit organization committed to enriching your career by providing ongoing training, competitive compensation, support for work-life balance and ways to give back to the communities we serve. Join our team of 29,000+ employees – your career opportunities are limitless!

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,999
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rhön-klinikum-ag.jpeg
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
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/allina-health.jpeg
Allina 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
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Allina 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 RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Allina Health in 2026.

Incident History — RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Allina Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rhön-klinikum-ag.jpeg
RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/allina-health.jpeg
Allina Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Allina Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Allina Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has not reported any.

In the current year, Allina Health company and RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Allina Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Allina Health company nor RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Allina Health company nor RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company nor Allina Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company nor Allina Health company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Allina Health company employs more people globally than RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RHÖN-KLINIKUM AG nor Allina 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