Comparison Overview

The University of Texas Medical Branch

VS

CVS Health

The University of Texas Medical Branch

301 University Blvd, Galveston, Texas, US, 77550
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 750 and 799

The first academic health center in Texas opened its doors in 1891 and today has four campuses, five health sciences schools, seven institutes for advanced study, a research enterprise that includes one of only two national laboratories dedicated to the safe study of infectious threats to human health, a Level 1 Trauma Center and a health system offering a full range of primary and specialized medical services throughout the Texas Gulf Coast region. UTMB is an institution in The University of Texas System and a member of the Texas Medical Center.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 11,743
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

CVS Health

1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI, US, 02895
Last Update: 2026-03-27
Between 650 and 699

CVS Health is the leading health solutions company, delivering care like no one else can. We reach more people and improve the health of communities across America through our local presence, digital channels and over 300,000 dedicated colleagues. Wherever and whenever people need us, we help them with their health – whether that’s managing chronic diseases, staying compliant with their medications or accessing affordable health and wellness services in the most convenient ways. We help people navigate the health care system – and their personal health care – by simplifying health care one person, one family and one community at a time. Follow @CVSHealth on social media.

NAICS: 62
NAICS Definition: Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees: 135,996
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/utmb.jpeg
The University of Texas Medical Branch
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/cvshealth.jpeg
CVS 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
The University of Texas Medical Branch
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CVS 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 The University of Texas Medical Branch in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for CVS Health in 2026.

Incident History — The University of Texas Medical Branch (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Texas Medical Branch cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

CVS Health cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/utmb.jpeg
The University of Texas Medical Branch
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cvshealth.jpeg
CVS Health
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Policy-based discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: phishing emails (67% of attacks in North America), software vulnerabilities (32% of attacks), RDP compromise (30% in SMBs), stolen credentials (29%), unmanaged third-party integrations (25%), zero-day exploits (e.g., MOVEit), RaaS (Ransomware-as-a-Service), botnet malware (e.g., Qakbot, DanaBot), AI-generated phishing lures, unpatched systems
Motivation: financial gain (ransom payments, data extortion), disruption of critical infrastructure (e.g., healthcare, supply chains), data theft for dark web sales (e.g., PII, medical records), espionage (e.g., state-linked DanaBot attacks), reputation damage (e.g., leaking sensitive data)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Human Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

The University of Texas Medical Branch company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CVS Health company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CVS Health company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The University of Texas Medical Branch company has not reported any.

In the current year, CVS Health company and The University of Texas Medical Branch company have not reported any cyber incidents.

CVS Health company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while The University of Texas Medical Branch company has not reported such incidents publicly.

CVS Health company has disclosed at least one data breach, while The University of Texas Medical Branch company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither CVS Health company nor The University of Texas Medical Branch company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch company nor CVS Health company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CVS Health company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The University of Texas Medical Branch company.

CVS Health company employs more people globally than The University of Texas Medical Branch company, reflecting its scale as a Hospitals and Health Care.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS Health holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Texas Medical Branch nor CVS 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