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

Comparison Overview

Monash Information TechnologyMonash Information Technology
VS
ETH ZürichETH Zürich
Monash Information Technology

Monash Information Technology

20 Exhibition Walk, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, AU

Last Update: 28/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.monash.edu/it
769/1000Fair

Adopting a global outlook, we form a powerful community of the best minds in information technology (IT) and computer science. Skilled educators who inspire and empower. Talented researchers who innovate and disrupt. Out of Australia’s prestigious Group of Eight unive...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:55
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ETH Zürich

ETH Zürich

Rämistrasse 101, Zürich, CH, 8092

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://ethz.ch/en.html
802/1000Good

ETH Zurich – Where the future begins Freedom and individual responsibility, entrepreneurial spirit and open-mindedness: ETH Zurich stands on a bedrock of true Swiss values. Our university for science and technology dates back to the year 1855, when the founders of mode...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:11,567
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Monash Information Technology

Monash Information Technology

-
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
ETH Zürich

ETH Zürich

-
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 Monash Information Technology in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ETH Zürich in 2026.

Incidents

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

Monash Information Technology 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 - ETH Zürich (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ETH Zürich 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...
Monash Information Technology

Monash Information Technology

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ETH Zürich

ETH Zürich

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9