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

Comparison Overview

Green Mountain Higher Education ConsortiumGreen Mountain Higher Education Consortium
VS
RMIT UniversityRMIT University
Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

120 Graham Way, Shelburne, 05482, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.gmhec.org
697/1000Weak

The Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium is a collaborative endeavor of three Vermont Colleges: Champlain College, Middlebury College and Saint Michael’s College. Partnered together, our goal is to find ways to reduce administrative costs and services common to al...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:15
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
RMIT University

RMIT University

124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.rmit.edu.au
805/1000Good

RMIT is a global university of technology, design and enterprise. One of Australia's original tertiary institutions, RMIT University enjoys an international reputation for excellence in professional and vocational education, applied research, and engagement with the ne...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:14,132
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

-
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
RMIT University

RMIT 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 Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RMIT University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

RMIT 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...
Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRE3402834103025
RMIT University

RMIT University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA