Comparison Overview

Georgia Institute of Technology

VS

University of Southern California

Georgia Institute of Technology

225 North Ave, Atlanta, Georgia , 30332-0530, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849

The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the nation's premier research universities providing a focused, technologically based education to more than 25,000 undergraduate and graduate students . Ranked seventh among U.S. News & World Report's top public universities, Georgia Tech offers degrees through the Colleges of Business, Computing, Design, Engineering, Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Institute offers research opportunities to both undergraduate and graduate students and is home to more than 100 centers that consistently contribute vital innovation to American government, industry, and business.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,134
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Southern California

3551 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849

The University of Southern California is a leading private research university located in Los Angeles, the capital of the Pacific Rim. This is the official LinkedIn presence for the University of Southern California. This account is managed and mediated by the staff of USC University Communications. Content (including posts from 3rd parties) that include videos, photographs, opinions and links to content outside of this channel do not necessarily represent the University of Southern California’s academic goals or opinions. Community guidelines: Alumni and students are welcome to post professional updates and news. Posts containing solicitations, product placements, derogatory or inflammatory comments are prohibited and will be removed. Off-topic comments will also be removed. Posts are not regularly monitored. Please note: for questions regarding degrees offered and admissions policies please call (213) 740-2311.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 23,978
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-institute-of-technology.jpeg
Georgia Institute of Technology
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-southern-california.jpeg
University of Southern California
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Georgia Institute of Technology
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Southern California
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Georgia Institute of Technology in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Southern California in 2025.

Incident History — Georgia Institute of Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Georgia Institute of Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Southern California (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Southern California cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-institute-of-technology.jpeg
Georgia Institute of Technology
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-southern-california.jpeg
University of Southern California
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Loss of External Hard Drive
Blog: Blog

FAQ

University of Southern California company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Georgia Institute of Technology company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Southern California company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Georgia Institute of Technology company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Southern California company and Georgia Institute of Technology company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Southern California company nor Georgia Institute of Technology company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Southern California company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Georgia Institute of Technology company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Southern California company nor Georgia Institute of Technology company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology company nor University of Southern California company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Southern California company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Georgia Institute of Technology company.

University of Southern California company employs more people globally than Georgia Institute of Technology company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology nor University of Southern California holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L