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

Comparison Overview

Princeton UniversityPrinceton University
VS
Washington University in St. LouisWashington University in St. Louis
Princeton University

Princeton University

1 Nassau Hall, Address 2, Princeton, NJ, US, 08544-0070

Last Update: 03/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://princeton.edu
489/1000Critical

A vibrant community of learning that endeavors to fulfill its informal motto, '​'​in the nation's service and the service of humanity.'​'​ (Alumni note: The "Notable Alumni"​ section is generated by LinkedIn.)

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:11,248
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3
Washington University in St. Louis

Washington University in St. Louis

One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, mo, US, 63130-4899

Last Update: 24/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://washu.edu
780/1000Fair

Washington University in St. Louis, a medium-sized, independent university, is dedicated to challenging its faculty and students alike to seek new knowledge and greater understanding of an ever-changing, multicultural world. The university has played an integral role in...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:17,866
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Princeton University

Princeton 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
Washington University in St. Louis

Washington University in St. Louis

-
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)

Princeton University has 76.47% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

Washington University in St. Louis has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Washington University in St. Louis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington University in St. Louis 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...
Princeton University

Princeton University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCGVERHARUDE1777034314
🔒 Incident : Breach
DARHARPRICOLCLE1767881845
Washington University in St. Louis

Washington University in St. Louis

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PTCWAS1784881471

FAQ

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