Comparison Overview

UNC Health

VS

Corewell 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

Corewell Health

None
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 0 and 549

People are at the heart of everything we do, and the inspiration for our legacy of outstanding outcomes, innovation, strong community partnerships, philanthropy and transparency. Corewell Health is a not-for-profit health system that provides health care and coverage with an exceptional team of 65,000+ dedicated people—including more than 12,000 physicians and advanced practice providers and more than 15,500 nurses providing care and services in 21 hospitals, 300+ outpatient locations and several post-acute facilities—and Priority Health, a provider-sponsored health plan serving more than 1.3 million members. Through experience and collaboration, we are reimagining a better, more equitable model of health and wellness. For more information, visit corewellhealth.org.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 41,961
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
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/corewell-health.jpeg
Corewell 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
Corewell 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)

Corewell Health has 29.58% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

UNC Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Corewell 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/corewell-health.jpeg
Corewell Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Corewell Health company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to UNC Health company.

In the current year, Corewell Health company has reported more cyber incidents than UNC Health company.

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

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

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

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

Neither UNC Health nor Corewell Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UNC Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Corewell Health company.

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

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

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

Neither UNC Health nor Corewell Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Corewell Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Corewell Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UNC Health nor Corewell 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