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

Comparison Overview

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
VS
George Mason UniversityGeorge Mason University
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, co, 80045, US

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cuanschutz.edu
784/1000Fair

The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus is the largest academic health center in the Rocky Mountain region and a destination at the forefront of transformative science, medicine, education and patient care. The campus encompasses the University of Colorado ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:6,538
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
George Mason University

George Mason University

4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia , US, 22030

Last Update: 12/09/2026

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

George Mason University is Virginia’s largest and most diverse public research university. Located near Washington, D.C., Mason enrolls more than 40,000 students from 130 countries and 50 states, and has a residential population of more than 6,000 students. Mason has gr...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,707
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

-
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
George Mason University

George Mason University

-
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 University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for George Mason University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - George Mason University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

George Mason University 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...
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
George Mason University

George Mason University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8