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

Comparison Overview

California State University San MarcosCalifornia State University San Marcos
VS
University of North TexasUniversity of North Texas
California State University San Marcos

California State University San Marcos

333 S Twin Oaks Valley Rd, San Marcos, ca, 92096-0001, US

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.csusm.edu
782/1000Fair

Cutting-edge research meets hands-on application at our campus and in the real world. California State University San Marcos is a new kind of university, pushing the boundaries of innovation to prepare tomorrow's leaders, build stronger communities and solve pressin...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:2,948
Subsidiaries:40
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
University of North Texas

University of North Texas

1155 Union Circle #311277, Denton, Tx, US, 76203-1277

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://unt.edu
800/1000Good

Ranked a Tier One research university by the Carnegie Classification, UNT is the flagship of the UNT System and is located in Denton, Texas. With 242 degree programs and a thriving community of nearly 44,000 students, UNT serves the North Texas region and helps drive th...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:12,902
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
California State University San Marcos

California State University San Marcos

-
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 North Texas

University of North Texas

-
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 California State University San Marcos in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of North Texas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - California State University San Marcos (X = Date, Y = Severity)

California State University San Marcos cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - University of North Texas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of North Texas 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...
California State University San Marcos

California State University San Marcos

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
University of North Texas

University of North Texas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2