Comparison Overview
California State University, Monterey Bay

California State University, Monterey Bay
100 Campus Center, Seaside, CA, 93955-8001, US
Last Update: 12/02/2026
The official LinkedIn of Cal State Monterey Bay — where together we are stronger! Fostering personalized education in an inspiring coastal environment, we empower students to lead with compassion. Nestled between the scenic Monterey Bay and the Salinas Valley, we prov...

Harvard University
30 Dunster St, Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, 02138
Last Update: 24/06/2026
Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally. Founded in 1636, Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. The official flags...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

California State University, Monterey Bay







Harvard University






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for California State University, Monterey Bay in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
Harvard University has 654.72% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - California State University, Monterey Bay (X = Date, Y = Severity)
California State University, Monterey Bay cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Harvard University (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Harvard University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

California State University, Monterey Bay

Harvard University
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.