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

Comparison Overview

McGill Information Technology ServicesMcGill Information Technology Services
VS
University of ArizonaUniversity of Arizona
McGill Information Technology Services

McGill Information Technology Services

845 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, H3A 0G4, CA

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://mcgill.ca/it/
771/1000Fair

Our mission To deliver value-driven IT services that strengthen McGill’s ability to provide internationally renowned quality education, research and scholarly activities. With our talented team of diverse IT professionals, we provide best practices, cost-effective, and...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

1401 E University, Tucson, Arizona, US, 85721-0066

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://arizona.edu
806/1000Good

The University of Arizona is the leading public research university in the American Southwest and Arizona's only member of the prestigious Association of American Universities. As the state's land-grant university, our research and resources enrich communities around th...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:21,092
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
McGill Information Technology Services

McGill Information Technology Services

-
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
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

-
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 McGill Information Technology Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Arizona in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - McGill Information Technology Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McGill Information Technology Services 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 - University of Arizona (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Arizona 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...
McGill Information Technology Services

McGill Information Technology Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
University of Arizona

University of Arizona

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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