Comparison Overview
Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology
Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology
Azadi Ave., Tehran, undefined, undefined, IR
Last Update: 18/12/2025
The Electrical Engineering Department of Sharif University of Technology (SUT) was founded in 1967, one year after the establishment of Sharif University of Technology, in order to address the technical needs of the Iranian industry. While initially offering an undergra...
University of Florida
355 Tigert Hall, Gainesville, Florida, US, 32611-3115
Last Update: 29/03/2026
University of Florida is a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university. The state's oldest, largest and most comprehensive university, it is among the nation's most academically diverse public universities. University of Florida has a long history of e...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology
University of Florida
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for University of Florida in 2026.
Incident History - Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - University of Florida (X = Date, Y = Severity)
University of Florida cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
Electrical Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology
University of Florida
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.