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

Comparison Overview

OpenAIOpenAI
VS
The University of EdinburghThe University of Edinburgh
OpenAI

OpenAI

San Francisco, 94110, US

Last Update: 07/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://openai.com/
361/1000Critical

OpenAI is an AI research and deployment company dedicated to ensuring that general-purpose artificial intelligence benefits all of humanity. AI is an extremely powerful tool that must be created with safety and human needs at its core. OpenAI is dedicated to putting tha...

NAICS:5417
NAICS Definition:Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees:9,859
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
28
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
4
The University of Edinburgh

The University of Edinburgh

Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, GB, EH8 9YL

Last Update: 10/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://edin.ac/liprofile
785/1000Fair

Imagine what you could do at a world-leading university that is globally recognised for its teaching, research and innovation. The University of Edinburgh has been providing students with world-class teaching for more than 425 years, unlocking the potential of some o...

NAICS:5417
NAICS Definition:Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees:16,030
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OpenAI

OpenAI

-
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
The University of Edinburgh

The University of Edinburgh

-
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 Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)

OpenAI has 1928.99% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Edinburgh in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OpenAI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OpenAI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - The University of Edinburgh (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Edinburgh 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...
OpenAI

OpenAI

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OPE1783419841
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OPE1783009491
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OPEANT1782368715
The University of Edinburgh

The University of Edinburgh

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8