Comparison Overview

St. Luke's University Health Network

VS

Inova Health

St. Luke's University Health Network

801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, 18015, US
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1872, St. Luke’s University Health Network (SLUHN) is a fully integrated, regional, non-profit network of more than 23,000 employees providing services at 16 campuses and 350+ outpatient sites. With annual net revenue of $4 billion, the Network’s service area includes 11 counties in two states: Lehigh, Northampton, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Montgomery, Monroe, Schuylkill and Luzerne counties in Pennsylvania and Warren and Hunterdon counties in New Jersey. St. Luke’s hospitals operate the largest network of trauma centers in Pennsylvania, with the Bethlehem Campus being home to St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital. Dedicated to advancing medical education, St. Luke’s is the preeminent teaching hospital in central-eastern Pennsylvania. In partnership with Temple University, the Network established the Lehigh Valley’s first and only four-year medical school campus. It also operates the nation’s longest continuously operating School of Nursing, established in 1884, and over 50 fully accredited graduate medical educational programs with more than 500 residents and fellows. In 2022, St. Luke’s, a member of the Children’s Hospital Association, opened the Lehigh Valley’s first and only free-standing facility dedicated entirely to kids. SLUHN is the only Lehigh Valley-based health care system to earn Medicare’s five-star ratings (the highest) for quality, efficiency and patient satisfaction. It is both a Leapfrog Group and Healthgrades Top Hospital and a Newsweek World’s Best Hospital. The Network’s flagship University Hospital has earned the 100 Top Major Teaching Hospital designation from Premier 13 times total and eleven years in a row, including in 2023 when it was identified as THE #4 TEACHING HOSPITAL IN THE COUNTRY.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 10,877
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Inova Health

3300 Gallows Road, Falls Church, Virginia, US, 22042
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 750 and 799

We are Inova, Northern Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area’s leading nonprofit healthcare provider. With expertise and compassion, we partner with our patients to help them stay healthy. We treat illness, heal injury and look at a patient’s whole health to help them flourish. Through our expansive network of hospitals, primary and specialty care practices, emergency and urgent care centers, and outpatient services, Inova provides care for more than 1 million unique patients every year. Total patient visits exceed 4 million annually, demonstrating our ability to deliver the best clinical care and ensuring a seamless experience for all who rely on us for their healthcare needs. Consistently ranked and recognized as a national healthcare leader in safety, quality and patient experience, Inova’s world-class care is made possible by the strength and breadth of our network, our 26,000 team members, our technology and our innovation. In 2025, Inova was named the Health System of the Year by Press Ganey, a national leader in healthcare experience, recognizing our excellence in patient care, team member engagement, and commitment to continuous improvement. Inova is home to Northern Virginia’s only Level 1 Trauma Center and Level 4 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and provides high-quality healthcare to each person in every community we are privileged to serve – regardless of ability to pay – every day of their life. More information about Inova can be found at www.inova.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 14,260
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st--luke's-hospital.jpeg
St. Luke's University Health Network
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/inovahealth.jpeg
Inova 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
St. Luke's University Health Network
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Inova 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 St. Luke's University Health Network in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Inova Health in 2026.

Incident History — St. Luke's University Health Network (X = Date, Y = Severity)

St. Luke's University Health Network cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Inova Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/st--luke's-hospital.jpeg
St. Luke's University Health Network
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/inovahealth.jpeg
Inova Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

St. Luke's University Health Network company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Inova Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Inova Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas St. Luke's University Health Network company has not reported any.

In the current year, Inova Health company and St. Luke's University Health Network company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Inova Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while St. Luke's University Health Network company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Inova Health company nor St. Luke's University Health Network company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Inova Health company nor St. Luke's University Health Network company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network company nor Inova Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Inova Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to St. Luke's University Health Network company.

Inova Health company employs more people globally than St. Luke's University Health Network company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Inova 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