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

Comparison Overview

Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for ProfessionalsJohns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals
VS
Queen's UniversityQueen's University
Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

Baltimore, US

Last Update: 17/12/2025

View Profile

Johns Hopkins Engineering for Professionals offers the #1 ranked online Engineering Management program, as recognized by U.S. News & World Report. Designed for working professionals, this program provides a strong foundation in management principles while allowing stude...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Queen's University

Queen's University

99 University Avenue, Kingston K7L 3N6, Kingston, on, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.queensu.ca
759/1000Fair

Queen’s University has a long history of scholarship, discovery, and innovation that shapes our collective knowledge and helps address some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Home to more than 25,000 students, Queen’s offers a comprehensive research-intensive envi...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,012
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

-
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
Queen's University

Queen's University

-
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 Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Queen's University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Queen's University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Queen's University 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...
Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

Johns Hopkins Engineering Management for Professionals

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Queen's University

Queen's University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
QUE205428522

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA