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

Comparison Overview

Penn Arts & SciencesPenn Arts & Sciences
VS
Rutgers UniversityRutgers University
Penn Arts & Sciences

Penn Arts & Sciences

University City, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19104

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.sas.upenn.edu
433/1000Critical

The School of Arts and Sciences (SAS) forms the foundation of the scholarly excellence that has established Penn as one of the world's leading research universities. We teach students across all 12 Penn schools, and our academic departments span the reach from anthropol...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:56
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1
Rutgers University

Rutgers University

57 US Highway 1, New Brunswick, 08901, US

Last Update: 24/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.rutgers.edu
680/1000Weak

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, stands among America’s highest-ranked, most diverse public research universities. The oldest, largest, and top-ranked public university in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, you’ll find us at our main locations in thr...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:18,275
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Penn Arts & Sciences

Penn Arts & Sciences

-
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
Rutgers University

Rutgers University

-
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 Penn Arts & Sciences in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

Rutgers University has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Penn Arts & Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Penn Arts & Sciences cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rutgers University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rutgers University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Penn Arts & Sciences

Penn Arts & Sciences

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PEN3232532110625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PEN4092440110525
🔒 Incident : Breach
PEN0862408110725
Rutgers University

Rutgers University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
INSRUTUDEHARCOL1782312004
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCGVERHARUDE1777034314

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
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:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9