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

Comparison Overview

Edinburgh Futures InstituteEdinburgh Futures Institute
VS
University of California, DavisUniversity of California, Davis
Edinburgh Futures Institute

Edinburgh Futures Institute

Edinburgh, GB

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://efi.ed.ac.uk/
769/1000Fair

At the Edinburgh Futures Institute we challenge, create, and make change happen. We are focused on tackling today’s increasingly complex issues by bringing people and disciplines together to spark the unexpected and make better futures possible. Our values of kindness...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:33
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
University of California, Davis

University of California, Davis

1 Shields Ave, Davis, California, US, 95616

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://ucdavis.edu
806/1000Good

UC Davis was founded in 1908 to serve the state of California. We do and we always will. Today, that seed planted years ago has grown into one of the world’s top universities. UC Davis has a community of faculty and staff who are leading the way in teaching, research, ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:21,175
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Edinburgh Futures Institute

Edinburgh Futures Institute

-
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
University of California, Davis

University of California, Davis

-
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 Edinburgh Futures Institute in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

University of California, Davis has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Edinburgh Futures Institute (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edinburgh Futures Institute cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - University of California, Davis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of California, Davis 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...
Edinburgh Futures Institute

Edinburgh Futures Institute

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
University of California, Davis

University of California, Davis

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KERTHECAL1778192774
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
UC-1778200668

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8