Comparison Overview

Chinese Academy of Sciences

VS

University of Cambridge

Chinese Academy of Sciences

52 Sanlihe Rd., Beijing, CN, 100864
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is the lead national scientific institution in natural sciences and high technology development in China and the country's supreme scientific advisory body. It incorporates three major parts: a comprehensive research and development network consisting of 104 research institutes, a traditional merit-based national academy as represented by its Academic Divisions and a system of higher education based on its affiliated 3 universities and the support of its research institutes. CAS has served as the major national strategic research force since founding in November 1949 and has left its deep footprints in Chinese S&T and the overall development of China's national innovation system.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 14,820
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Cambridge

The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, England, GB, CB2 1TN
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

The University of Cambridge is one of the world's foremost research universities. The University is made up of 31 Colleges and over 150 departments, faculties, schools and other institutions. Its mission is 'to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence'​.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 18,876
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
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/university-of-cambridge.jpeg
University of Cambridge
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
Chinese Academy of Sciences
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Cambridge
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2025.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Cambridge in 2025.

Incident History — Chinese Academy of Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chinese Academy of Sciences cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Cambridge (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Cambridge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-cambridge.jpeg
University of Cambridge
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing, Spoofed Websites
Motivation: Financial Gain, Espionage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

University of Cambridge company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Cambridge company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Chinese Academy of Sciences company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Cambridge company and Chinese Academy of Sciences company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Cambridge company nor Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Cambridge company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Chinese Academy of Sciences company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Cambridge company nor Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences company nor University of Cambridge company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Chinese Academy of Sciences company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Cambridge company.

University of Cambridge company employs more people globally than Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences nor University of Cambridge holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H