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

Comparison Overview

Guilford Technical Community CollegeGuilford Technical Community College
VS
RMIT UniversityRMIT University
Guilford Technical Community College

Guilford Technical Community College

601 E. Main Street, Jamestown, NC, US, 27282

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://gtcc.edu
725/1000Moderate

Guilford Technical Community College provides access to lifelong learning opportunities for personal growth, workforce productivity and community service. We serve all the diverse segments of Guilford County's population, delivering quality educational programs and ser...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:1,659
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
RMIT University

RMIT University

124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, 3000, AU

Last Update: 13/09/2026

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
Guilford Technical Community College

Guilford Technical Community College

-
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 Guilford Technical Community College in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RMIT University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Guilford Technical Community College (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guilford Technical Community College 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...
Guilford Technical Community College

Guilford Technical Community College

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GUI12116222
RMIT University

RMIT University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/I:N/A:H
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: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
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA