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

Comparison Overview

המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושליםהמרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים
VS
Indiana University BloomingtonIndiana University Bloomington
המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

Haneviim 37, Jerusalem, undefined, 91010, IL

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
http://Www.jmc.ac.il
850/1000Very Good

על המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים הינו מוסד אקדמי מוכר ע"י המועצה להשכלה גבוהה. המרכז נוסד על ידי ארגון נשות הדסה תחת השם "המכללה האקדמית הדסה" בשנת 1996. במשך שנים רבות ארגון נשות הדסה תמך במכללה. בשנת 2024 החליטו הצדדים כי דרכיהם ייפרדו ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:441
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Indiana University Bloomington

Indiana University Bloomington

107 S Indiana Ave, Bloomington, Indiana, US, 47405

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://bloomington.iu.edu
810/1000Good

Indiana University Bloomington is the flagship residential, research-intensive campus of Indiana University. Its academic excellence is grounded in the humanities, arts and sciences, and a range of highly ranked professional programs. Founded in 1820, the campus serve...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:29,998
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

-
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
Indiana University Bloomington

Indiana University Bloomington

-
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 המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Indiana University Bloomington in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים (X = Date, Y = Severity)

המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים 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 - Indiana University Bloomington (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Indiana University Bloomington 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...
המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

המרכז האקדמי הרב תחומי ירושלים

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Indiana University Bloomington

Indiana University Bloomington

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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