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

Comparison Overview

Cedar Crest CollegeCedar Crest College
VS
University of Alabama at BirminghamUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham
Cedar Crest College

Cedar Crest College

100 College Drive, Allentown, 18104-6196, US

Last Update: 20/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.cedarcrest.edu
654/1000Weak

At Cedar Crest College, we are an established front runner of exceptional education, creating the next generation of confident learners and leaders. Founded in 1867, Cedar Crest is a proud women's college at the traditional undergraduate level and offers flexible degre...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:663
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
University of Alabama at Birmingham

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Administration Bldg Suite 1070, BIRMINGHAM, 35294-0110, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://uab.edu
797/1000Fair

Known for its innovative and interdisciplinary approach to education at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a part of the University of Alabama System, is an internationally renowned research university and academic medic...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:16,634
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cedar Crest College

Cedar Crest College

-
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
University of Alabama at Birmingham

University of Alabama at Birmingham

-
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)

Cedar Crest College has 39.39% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Alabama at Birmingham in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cedar Crest College (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cedar Crest College cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - University of Alabama at Birmingham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Alabama at Birmingham 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...
Cedar Crest College

Cedar Crest College

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CED1784558500
University of Alabama at Birmingham

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: 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: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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8