Comparison Overview

University of Colorado Boulder

VS

University of Wisconsin-Madison

University of Colorado Boulder

914 Broadway St, Boulder, Colorado, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

As the flagship university of the state of Colorado, CU Boulder is a dynamic community of scholars and learners situated on one of the most spectacular college campuses in the country.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 15,137
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

University of Wisconsin-Madison

500 Lincoln Dr, Madison, WI, US, 53706-1380
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

In achievement and prestige, the University of Wisconsin–Madison has long been recognized as one of America's great universities. A public, land-grant institution, UW–Madison offers a complete spectrum of liberal arts studies, professional programs and student activities. Spanning 936 acres along the southern shore of Lake Mendota, the campus is located in the city of Madison.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 30,259
Subsidiaries: 24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cuboulder.jpeg
University of Colorado Boulder
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/uwmadison.jpeg
University of Wisconsin-Madison
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
University of Colorado Boulder
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Wisconsin-Madison
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Colorado Boulder in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2025.

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

University of Colorado Boulder cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Wisconsin-Madison (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Wisconsin-Madison cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cuboulder.jpeg
University of Colorado Boulder
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uwmadison.jpeg
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Wisconsin-Madison company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Colorado Boulder company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Colorado Boulder company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Wisconsin-Madison company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Wisconsin-Madison company and University of Colorado Boulder company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Wisconsin-Madison company nor University of Colorado Boulder company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Colorado Boulder company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other University of Wisconsin-Madison company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Wisconsin-Madison company nor University of Colorado Boulder company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder company nor University of Wisconsin-Madison company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Wisconsin-Madison company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Colorado Boulder company.

University of Wisconsin-Madison company employs more people globally than University of Colorado Boulder company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Colorado Boulder nor University of Wisconsin-Madison 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