Comparison Overview

UNC Health

VS

Adventist Health

UNC Health

101 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US, 27516
Last Update: 2026-03-24
Between 750 and 799

Our mission is to improve the health and well-being of North Carolinians and others whom we serve. We accomplish this by providing leadership and excellence in the interrelated areas of patient care, education and research. UNC Health and its 40,000 teammates, continue to serve as North Carolina’s Health Care System, caring for patients from all 100 counties and beyond our borders. We continue to leverage the world class research conducted in the UNC School of Medicine, translating that innovation to life-saving and life-changing therapies, procedures, and techniques for the patients who rely on us. General terms of service for UNC Health social media: https://www.facebook.com/unchealthcare/about_details

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,676
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Adventist Health

1 Adventist Health Way, Roseville, CA, US, 95661
Last Update: 2026-03-30

Adventist Health is a faith-inspired, nonprofit integrated health system serving more than 100 communities on the West Coast and Hawaii with over 440 sites of care. Founded on Adventist heritage and values, Adventist Health provides care in hospitals, clinics, home care agencies, hospice agencies, and joint-venture retirement centers in both rural and urban communities. Our compassionate and talented team of 38,000 includes employees, medical staff physicians, allied health professionals, and volunteers driven in pursuit of one mission; living God's love by inspiring health, wholeness and hope. We are committed to staying true to our heritage by providing patient-centered, quality care. Together, we are transforming the healthcare experience with an innovative whole-person focus on physical, mental, spiritual, and social healing to support community well-being.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 15,656
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unchealth.jpeg
UNC 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adventist-health.jpeg
Adventist 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
UNC Health
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Adventist 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 UNC Health in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Adventist Health in 2026.

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

UNC Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Adventist Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/unchealth.jpeg
UNC Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adventist-health.jpeg
Adventist Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

UNC Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Adventist Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UNC Health and Adventist Health have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Adventist Health company and UNC Health company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Adventist Health company nor UNC Health company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Adventist Health company and UNC Health company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Adventist Health company nor UNC Health company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UNC Health company nor Adventist Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both Adventist Health company and UNC Health company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

UNC Health company employs more people globally than Adventist Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Adventist 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