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
Syracuse UniversitySyracuse 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
Syracuse University

Syracuse University

900 S Crouse Ave, Syracuse, New York, US, 13244

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.syracuse.edu
778/1000Fair

Syracuse University is a private, international research university with distinctive academics, diversely unique offerings and an undeniable spirit. Located in the geographic heart of New York State, with a global footprint, and nearly 150 years of history, Syracuse Uni...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,171
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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
Syracuse University

Syracuse 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 Syracuse 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 - Syracuse University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Syracuse University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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.
Syracuse University

Syracuse University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SYR3143622

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8