Comparison Overview

University Hospitals

VS

Rochester Regional Health

University Hospitals

University Hospitals, Cleveland, 44106, US
Last Update: 2026-03-23
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1866, University Hospitals serves the needs of patients through an integrated network of 23 hospitals (including 5 joint ventures), more than 50 health centers and outpatient facilities, and over 200 physician offices in 16 counties throughout northern Ohio. The system’s flagship quaternary care, academic medical center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, is affiliated with Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Oxford University and the Technion Israel Institute of Technology. The main campus also includes the UH Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, ranked among the top children’s hospitals in the nation; UH MacDonald Women's Hospital, Ohio's only hospital for women; and UH Seidman Cancer Center, part of the NCI-designated Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. UH is home to some of the most prestigious clinical and research programs in the nation, with more than 3,000 active clinical trials and research studies underway. UH Cleveland Medical Center is perennially among the highest performers in national ranking surveys, including “America’s Best Hospitals” from U.S. News & World Report. UH is also home to 19 Clinical Care Delivery and Research Institutes. UH is one of the largest employers in Northeast Ohio with more than 30,000 employees.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 19,860
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Rochester Regional Health

100 S Kings Hwy, Rochester, New York, US, 14617
Last Update: 2026-03-19

Rochester Regional Health, headquartered in Rochester, NY, is an integrated health services organization serving the people of Western New York, the Finger Lakes, St. Lawrence County, and beyond. We are dedicated to helping our community stay healthy and live fulfilling lives. Together, we find the best way forward to where you want to be. From western to northern New York, rest assured; we’ve got you covered. We see you. We’re with you. We’re here to uplift you—to treat people, not symptoms. To treat you well. Our experience is nation-leading, neighbor-driven, and rooted in generations of real-life care. Today, we offer comprehensive care from 500+ locations, including 8 hospitals; more than 300 primary and specialty practices, rehabilitation centers and ambulatory campuses; innovative senior services, facilities and independent housing; a wide range of behavioral health services; and ACM Global Laboratories, a global leader in patient and clinical trials. Whatever you need, from every age, to every stage, across every service line, and every symptom... Whatever it is, we’re here for it. Learn more about Rochester Regional Health at careers.rochesterregional.org. Rochester Regional Health is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Minority/Female/Disability/Veteran

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,135
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
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/rochesterregionalhealth.jpeg
Rochester Regional 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
University Hospitals
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rochester Regional 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 University Hospitals in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Rochester Regional Health in 2026.

Incident History — University Hospitals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University Hospitals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rochester Regional Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-hospitals.jpeg
University Hospitals
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access/Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2015
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Threat
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rochesterregionalhealth.jpeg
Rochester Regional Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Rochester Regional Health company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University Hospitals company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University Hospitals company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Rochester Regional Health company.

In the current year, Rochester Regional Health company and University Hospitals company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Rochester Regional Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while University Hospitals company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University Hospitals company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Rochester Regional Health company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Rochester Regional Health company nor University Hospitals company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University Hospitals company nor Rochester Regional Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University Hospitals company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Rochester Regional Health company.

University Hospitals company employs more people globally than Rochester Regional Health company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University Hospitals nor Rochester Regional 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