Comparison Overview

St. Luke's University Health Network

VS

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

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

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

1275 York Avenue, New York, 10065, US
Last Update: 2026-03-22
Between 750 and 799

The people of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) are united by a singular mission: ending cancer for life. Our specialized care teams provide personalized, compassionate, expert care to patients of all ages. Informed by basic research done at our Sloan Kettering Institute, scientists across MSK collaborate to conduct innovative translational and clinical research that is driving a revolution in our understanding of cancer as a disease and improving the ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat it. MSK is dedicated to training the next generation of scientists and clinicians, who go on to pursue our mission at MSK and around the globe. One of the world’s most respected comprehensive centers devoted exclusively to cancer, we have been recognized as one of the top two cancer hospitals in the country by U.S. News & World Report for more than 30 years.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,500
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-center.jpeg
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
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
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
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 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 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 — Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 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/memorial-sloan-kettering-cancer-center.jpeg
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to St. Luke's University Health Network company.

In the current year, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company and St. Luke's University Health Network company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company nor St. Luke's University Health Network company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company nor St. Luke's University Health Network company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company nor St. Luke's University Health Network company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network company nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to St. Luke's University Health Network company.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 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 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center holds HIPAA certification.

Neither St. Luke's University Health Network nor Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 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