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

Comparison Overview

The George Washington UniversityThe George Washington University
VS
Lund UniversityLund University
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
Lund University

Lund University

Lund University, Box 117, Lund, SE, 221 00

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
796/1000Fair

Lund University has around 46 000 students and 8 600 staff based in Lund, Helsingborg and Malmö. We are united in our efforts to understand, explain and improve our world and the human condition. Lund is considered one of the most popular study locations in Sweden. The...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,054
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
Lund University

Lund 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 The George Washington University in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lund University in 2026.

Incidents

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

Incident History - Lund University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lund University 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...
The George Washington University

The George Washington University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1777372097
Lund University

Lund University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2