Comparison Overview

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth

VS

The University of Texas at Austin

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth

29 N Main St, Hanover, 03766, US
Last Update: 2025-12-02
View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://dickey.dartmouth.edu/

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding unites the diverse strengths of Dartmouth College—students, faculty, undergraduate and graduate schools—in addressing the world’s challenges. The Dickey Center broadens the scope of learning through advanced study, interdisciplinary collaboration, research innovation, and respect for a diversity of viewpoints. The Center supports research, internships, fellowships, and other student-specific programming in the areas of the Arctic and the Environment, Global Health and Development, Global Studies, and Peace and Security. The Center was established in 1982 and dedicated to the memory and values of Dartmouth College President John Sloan Dickey (1907-1991). He welcomed entering students at Convocation with the charge, "Your business here is learning."

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 107
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3
View Profile

The University of Texas at Austin

1 University Station, Austin, TX, US, 78712
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849
https://www.utexas.edu/

The University of Texas at Austin is one of the largest public universities in the United States. Founded in 1883, the University has grown from a single building, eight teachers, two departments and 221 students to a 350-acre main campus with 21,000 faculty and staff, 16 colleges and schools and more than 50,000 students.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 25,878
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dartmouthdickey.jpeg
The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth
—
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/theuniversityoftexasataustin-.jpeg
The University of Texas at Austin
—
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
The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The University of Texas at Austin
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth has 44.93% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Texas at Austin in 2025.

Incident History — The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The University of Texas at Austin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Texas at Austin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dartmouthdickey.jpeg
The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Oracle EBS Zero-Day Vulnerability (CVE-2025-61884) via remote access without authentication
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransom Extortion), Data Theft for Dark Web Sales, Reputation Damage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: software vulnerability (Oracle EBS), zero-day exploit
Motivation: Financial gain (data theft for extortion/leak)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/theuniversityoftexasataustin-.jpeg
The University of Texas at Austin
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The University of Texas at Austin company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The University of Texas at Austin company has not reported any.

In the current year, The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company has reported more cyber incidents than The University of Texas at Austin company.

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while The University of Texas at Austin company has not reported such incidents publicly.

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other The University of Texas at Austin company has not reported such incidents publicly.

The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while The University of Texas at Austin company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company nor The University of Texas at Austin company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both The University of Texas at Austin company and The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

The University of Texas at Austin company employs more people globally than The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth nor The University of Texas at Austin holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34, there is a vulnerability in ImageMagick’s Magick++ layer that manifests when Options::fontFamily is invoked with an empty string. Clearing a font family calls RelinquishMagickMemory on _drawInfo->font, freeing the font string but leaving _drawInfo->font pointing to freed memory while _drawInfo->family is set to that (now-invalid) pointer. Any later cleanup or reuse of _drawInfo->font re-frees or dereferences dangling memory. DestroyDrawInfo and other setters (Options::font, Image::font) assume _drawInfo->font remains valid, so destruction or subsequent updates trigger crashes or heap corruption. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
References
Description

FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 has a Remote Code Execution via Unrestricted File Upload in Ad Management. FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 allows authenticated remote attackers to upload files that the server later executes (or stores in an executable location) without sufficient validation, sanitization, or execution restrictions. An authenticated remote attacker can upload a crafted PHP file and cause the application or web server to execute it, resulting in remote code execution (RCE).

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

PHPGurukul Billing System 1.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the admin/index.php endpoint. Specifically, the username parameter accepts unvalidated user input, which is then concatenated directly into a backend SQL query.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

NMIS/BioDose software V22.02 and previous versions contain executable binaries with plain text hard-coded passwords. These hard-coded passwords could allow unauthorized access to both the application and database.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
cvss4
Base: 8.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
References
Description

NMIS/BioDose V22.02 and previous versions' installation directory paths by default have insecure file permissions, which in certain deployment scenarios can enable users on client workstations to modify the program executables and libraries.

Published
Date
2025-12-02
Updated
Date
2025-12-02
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/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
References