Comparison Overview

Indiana University

VS

Yale University

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 650 and 699

Indiana University has nine total campuses: IU Bloomington, IU Indianapolis, IU East, IU Kokomo, IU Northwest, IU Southeast, IU South Bend, IU Columbus, and IU Fort Wayne.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 1,539
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Yale University

Woodbridge Hall, New Haven, CT, 6520, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849

For more than 300 years, Yale University has inspired the minds that inspire the world. Based in New Haven, Connecticut, Yale brings people and ideas together for positive impact around the globe. A research university that focuses on students and encourages learning as an essential way of life, Yale is a place for connection, creativity, and innovation among cultures and across disciplines.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,274
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indiana-university.jpeg
Indiana University
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/yale-university.jpeg
Yale University
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
Indiana University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Yale University
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

Indiana University has 38.89% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Yale University in 2025.

Incident History — Indiana University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Indiana University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Yale University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Yale University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indiana-university.jpeg
Indiana University
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2017
Type:Breach
Motivation: Research Misconduct
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2015
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unintentional Data Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/yale-university.jpeg
Yale University
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Yale University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Indiana University company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Indiana University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Yale University company has not reported any.

In the current year, Indiana University company has reported more cyber incidents than Yale University company.

Neither Yale University company nor Indiana University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Indiana University company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Yale University company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Yale University company nor Indiana University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Indiana University company nor Yale University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Yale University company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Indiana University company.

Yale University company employs more people globally than Indiana University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Indiana University nor Yale University holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A weakness has been identified in codingWithElias School Management System up to f1ac334bfd89ae9067cc14dea12ec6ff3f078c01. Affected is an unknown function of the file /student-view.php of the component Edit Student Info Page. This manipulation of the argument First Name causes cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. Other parameters might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 3.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

By providing a command-line argument starting with a semi-colon ; to an API endpoint created by the EnhancedCommandExecutor class of the HexStrike AI MCP server, the resultant composed command is executed directly in the context of the MCP server’s normal privilege; typically, this is root. There is no attempt to sanitize these arguments in the default configuration of this MCP server at the affected version (as of commit 2f3a5512 in September of 2025).

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

A weakness has been identified in winston-dsouza Ecommerce-Website up to 87734c043269baac0b4cfe9664784462138b1b2e. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /includes/header_menu.php of the component GET Parameter Handler. Executing manipulation of the argument Error can lead to cross site scripting. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product implements a rolling release for ongoing delivery, which means version information for affected or updated releases is unavailable. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Qualitor 8.20/8.24. Affected by this vulnerability is the function eval of the file /html/st/stdeslocamento/request/getResumo.php. Performing manipulation of the argument passageiros results in code injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

A vulnerability was identified in Scada-LTS up to 2.7.8.1. Affected is the function Common.getHomeDir of the file br/org/scadabr/vo/exporter/ZIPProjectManager.java of the component Project Import. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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