Comparison Overview

Brigham Young University

VS

School of Visual Arts

Brigham Young University

Main Campus, Provo, UT, US, 84602
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://byu.edu

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, belief enhances inquiry, study amplifies faith, and revelation leads to rich understanding; at BYU, helping students develop their full divine potential is central to both our teaching and our scholarship. As the flagship higher education institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU strives to be among the exceptional universities in the world and an essential university for the world.

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
View Profile

School of Visual Arts

209 East 23rd Street, New York, ny, US, 10010
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
http://sva.edu

School of Visual Arts has been a leader in the education of artists, designers, and creative professionals for more than seven decades. With a faculty of distinguished working professionals, a dynamic curriculum, and an emphasis on critical thinking, SVA is a catalyst for innovation and social responsibility. Comprising 6,000 students at its Manhattan campus and over 43,000 alumni from some 130 countries, SVA also represents one of the most influential artistic communities in the world. For information about the College’s 30 undergraduate and graduate degree programs, visit sva.edu.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,375
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brigham-young-university.jpeg
Brigham Young University
—
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/svanyc.jpeg
School of Visual Arts
—
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
Brigham Young University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
School of Visual Arts
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brigham Young University in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for School of Visual Arts in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — School of Visual Arts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

School of Visual Arts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brigham-young-university.jpeg
Brigham Young University
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2012
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Motivation: Accidental
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/svanyc.jpeg
School of Visual Arts
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Brigham Young University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to School of Visual Arts company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Brigham Young University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas School of Visual Arts company has not reported any.

In the current year, School of Visual Arts company and Brigham Young University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither School of Visual Arts company nor Brigham Young University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither School of Visual Arts company nor Brigham Young University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither School of Visual Arts company nor Brigham Young University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Brigham Young University company nor School of Visual Arts company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

School of Visual Arts company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Brigham Young University company.

School of Visual Arts company employs more people globally than Brigham Young University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Brigham Young University nor School of Visual Arts holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
References
Description

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References