Comparison Overview
Bar-Ilan University

Bar-Ilan University
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, undefined, 52900, IL
Last Update: 29/03/2026
Bar-Ilan is the fastest-growing university in the past seven years. The university is at the forefront of research in fields such as energy and sustainability, medical and life sciences, cyber, nanotechnology, natural language processing, and more. Alongside academic...

Lund University
Lund University, Box 117, Lund, SE, 221 00
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Lund University has around 46 000 students and 8 600 staff based in Lund, Helsingborg and Malmö. We are united in our efforts to understand, explain and improve our world and the human condition. Lund is considered one of the most popular study locations in Sweden. The...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Bar-Ilan University







Lund University






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Bar-Ilan University in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Lund University in 2026.
Incident History - Bar-Ilan University (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Bar-Ilan University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Lund University (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lund University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Bar-Ilan University

Lund University
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=login2. The manipulation of the argument email leads to sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
A flaw was found in the ipa_getkeytab module of the community.general Ansible collection. The module's bind_pw parameter, used to supply the LDAP simple-bind password when retrieving a Kerberos keytab, is not declared with no_log, unlike the sibling password parameter in the same module. As a consequence, the supplied IPA/LDAP bind password is recorded in cleartext in the managed host's system journal/syslog (the module's "Invoked with" record), is included in the module's return values and verbose (-v) output, and is displayed in Automation Controller / AWX job output. The password is additionally passed on the command line to the ipa-getkeytab helper (as --bindpw <value>), exposing it in the process list to local users while the command runs. An attacker able to read these logs, job output, or the process table can obtain the directory bind credential, potentially compromising the accounts and objects that credential can access.
The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forgery (SSRF).
disconf (Distributed Configuration Management Platform) 2.6.36 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The config-fetching APIs /api/config/item, /api/config/file, /api/config/list and /api/config/simple/list are exposed without authentication. The LoginInterceptor explicitly whitelists these four paths, so any anonymous attacker can read every configuration item and configuration file managed by the config center.
Funiture 1.0.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the backend tool interfaces /sys/tool/select.json and /sys/tool/update.json.