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
University of ArizonaUniversity of Arizona
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
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

1401 E University, Tucson, Arizona, US, 85721-0066

Last Update: 03/04/2026

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

The University of Arizona is the leading public research university in the American Southwest and Arizona's only member of the prestigious Association of American Universities. As the state's land-grant university, our research and resources enrich communities around th...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:21,092
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

-
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 University of Arizona 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 - University of Arizona (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Arizona cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
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.
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19917
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in code-projects Online Food Order System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file delete_food_items1.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument checkbox can lead to sql injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-74767
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a denial-of-service vulnerability in its handling of DAA (Direct Access Archive) files. When extracting the internal ISO image from a DAA archive, compressed chunks were decompressed using zlib.decompress() without enforcing a limit on the resulting uncompressed data. An attacker able to submit a crafted DAA file containing highly compressed data could cause Pandora to decompress a relatively small input into a very large amount of data in memory. Because the decompressed chunks are accumulated to construct the internal ISO image, this could result in excessive memory consumption and potentially CPU exhaustion, causing the extraction worker to become unresponsive, terminate, or affect the availability of the Pandora service. The patch introduces bounded decompression using decompressobj().decompress() with max_extracted_filesize, verifies the cumulative size of decompressed chunks, and raises a dedicated ZipBomb exception when the configured limit is exceeded. Pandora then aborts extraction and reports the file as too large.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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-2026-74764
SUMMARY

Pandora contains a path traversal vulnerability in its TAR archive extraction functionality. When processing a submitted TAR archive, the extractor passed archive member names directly to Python's tarfile.TarFile.extract() without applying an extraction filter. An attacker able to submit a specially crafted TAR archive containing malicious member paths, such as paths using ../ sequences or absolute paths, could cause extracted files to be written outside the intended extraction directory. This may allow the attacker to overwrite files accessible to the Pandora worker process and could potentially result in application compromise, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service depending on the files targeted and the privileges of the Pandora process. The vulnerability is corrected by using Python's filter='data' extraction filter, which rejects or sanitizes dangerous TAR members, including paths that escape the destination directory and unsafe link targets. The weakness corresponds to MITRE's general path traversal category, which includes archive extraction cases where attacker-controlled filenames cause files to be written outside the intended directory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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-2026-73055
SUMMARY

Shescape before 2.1.15 (and 3.0.0 before 3.0.2) fails to properly escape tilde (~) characters in assignment contexts on Unix systems where the shell is explicitly configured to "sh" or true and /bin/sh points to BusyBox. Using the escape and escapeAll APIs with untrusted input in an assignment prefixed to a command, an attacker can inject a tilde payload to disclose the user's home directory location and, depending on usage, alter the location on which a command operates.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-73054
SUMMARY

SiYuan versions before v3.7.4 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability in the WebSocket endpoint caused by differential parsing of query parameters between authentication exemption and session quarantine checks. Unauthenticated attackers can craft a malicious WebSocket URI with duplicated query parameters to bypass access auth code validation and receive the live kernel event stream including document identifiers, titles, and operation logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-15
UPDATED
Date2026-08-15
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:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9