Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University
VS
Lund UniversityLund University
Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University

Main Campus, Provo, UT, US, 84602

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://byu.edu
800/1000Good

We believe a world yearning for hope and joy needs the graduates of Brigham Young University—disciples of Jesus Christ who are driven by love for God and His children and who are prepared to serve and lead. This preparation demands a unique university model: at BYU, bel...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:16,614
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Lund University

Lund University

Lund University, Box 117, Lund, SE, 221 00

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
796/1000Fair

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...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,054
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Lund University

Lund University

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brigham Young University in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lund University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Brigham Young University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brigham Young University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Lund University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lund University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Brigham Young University

Brigham Young University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
BRI21381123
Lund University

Lund University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Brigham Young University company and Lund University company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Brigham Young University and Lund University, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Brigham Young University and Lund University, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Brigham Young University or Lund University ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Brigham Young University or Lund University ?
Between Brigham Young University and Lund University, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Brigham Young University and Lund University, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA