Comparison Overview
University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science
University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science
1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO, 80309, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
Founded in 1893, the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado Boulder is the second largest of seven schools and colleges at one of the nation's top public research institutions. As Colorado's flagship university, CU Boulder has selective...
University of California, San Francisco
530 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, California, US, 94122
Last Update: 01/04/2026
UC San Francisco is driven by the idea that when the best research, the best education and the best patient care converge, great breakthroughs are achieved. We pursue this integrated excellence with singular focus, fueled by collaboration among our top-ranked profession...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science
University of California, San Francisco
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for University of California, San Francisco in 2026.
Incident History - University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science (X = Date, Y = Severity)
University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - University of California, San Francisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)
University of California, San Francisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
University of Colorado Boulder College of Engineering & Applied Science
University of California, San Francisco
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.