Comparison Overview

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

VS

McKesson

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

34th St. and Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, 19104, US
Last Update: 2026-03-30
Between 750 and 799

Since its start in 1855 as the nation's first hospital devoted exclusively to caring for children, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has been the birthplace for many dramatic firsts in pediatric medicine. The Hospital has fostered medical discoveries and innovations that have improved pediatric healthcare and saved countless children’s lives. Today, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is one of the leading pediatric hospitals and research facilities in the world. Our 150 years of innovation and service to our patients, their families and our community reflect an ongoing commitment to exceptional patient care, training new generations of pediatric healthcare providers and pioneering significant research initiatives.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 17,442
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

McKesson

6555 State Highway 161, Irving, Texas, US, 75039
Last Update: 2026-03-25

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for McKesson Corporation. We're an impact-driven healthcare organization dedicated to “Advancing Health Outcomes For All.” As a global healthcare company, we touch virtually every aspect of health. Our leaders empower our people to lead with a growth mindset and deliver excellence for our customers, partners, and the wellbeing of people, everywhere. We work with biopharma companies, care providers, pharmacies, manufacturers, governments, and others to deliver insights, products and services that make quality care more accessible and affordable. Delivering better health outcomes for our employees, our communities, and our environment. Every day, we strive to inspire and enable people to reach their full potential. To learn more about how #TeamMckesson helps improve care in every setting, visit: https://bit.ly/3xadvB0

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 24,029
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-childrens-hospital-of-philadelphia.jpeg
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
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/mckesson.jpeg
McKesson
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
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
McKesson
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 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for McKesson in 2026.

Incident History — Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — McKesson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKesson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-childrens-hospital-of-philadelphia.jpeg
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mckesson.jpeg
McKesson
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

McKesson company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, McKesson company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company.

In the current year, McKesson company and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither McKesson company nor Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither McKesson company nor Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither McKesson company nor Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company nor McKesson company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

McKesson company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company.

McKesson company employs more people globally than Children's Hospital of Philadelphia company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Children's Hospital of Philadelphia nor McKesson 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