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

Comparison Overview

Fofonga for Pacific Research ExcellenceFofonga for Pacific Research Excellence
VS
The George Washington UniversityThe George Washington University
Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

Auckland, 1010, NZ

Last Update: 03/12/2025

View Profile
770/1000Fair

Building Pacific research leadership and excellence at Waipapa Taumata Rau, the University of Auckland 💙

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The George Washington University

The George Washington University

2121 I Street, NW, Washington, D.C., US, 20052

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gwu.edu
799/1000Fair

The George Washington University, an independent academic institution chartered by the Congress of the United States in 1821, dedicates itself to furthering human well-being. The University values a dynamic, student-focused community stimulated by cultural and intellect...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:11,815
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

-
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
The George Washington University

The George Washington 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 Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The George Washington University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence 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 - The George Washington University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The George Washington 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...
Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

Fofonga for Pacific Research Excellence

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The George Washington University

The George Washington University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1777372097

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1