Comparison Overview

Purdue University

VS

University of Florida

Purdue University

Hovde Hall of Administration, West Lafayette, in, 47907, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://purdue.edu

Purdue University is a vast laboratory for discovery. The university is known not only for science, technology, engineering, and math programs, but also for our imagination, ingenuity, and innovation. It’s a place where those who seek an education come to make their ideas real — especially when those transformative discoveries lead to scientific, technological, social, or humanitarian impact. Founded in 1869 in West Lafayette, Indiana, the university proudly serves its state as well as the nation and the world. Academically, Purdue’s role as a major research institution is supported by top-ranking disciplines in pharmacy, business, engineering, and agriculture. More than 39,000 students are enrolled here. All 50 states and 130 countries are represented. Add about 950 student organizations and Big Ten Boilermaker athletics, and you get a college atmosphere that’s without rival.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 25,235
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

University of Florida

355 Tigert Hall, Gainesville, Florida, US, 32611-3115
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 800 and 849
http://UF.edu

University of Florida is a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university. The state's oldest, largest and most comprehensive university, it is among the nation's most academically diverse public universities. University of Florida has a long history of established programs in international education, research and service. It was founded in 1853 and is based in Gainesville, Florida.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 30,591
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/purdue-university.jpeg
Purdue University
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uflorida.jpeg
University of Florida
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Purdue University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Florida
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Purdue University in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Florida in 2025.

Incident History — Purdue University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Purdue University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Florida (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Florida cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/purdue-university.jpeg
Purdue University
Incidents

Date Detected: 07/2018
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Accidental Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uflorida.jpeg
University of Florida
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Florida company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Purdue University company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Purdue University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Florida company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Florida company and Purdue University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Florida company nor Purdue University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Florida company nor Purdue University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Florida company nor Purdue University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Purdue University company nor University of Florida company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Florida company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Purdue University company.

University of Florida company employs more people globally than Purdue University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Purdue University nor University of Florida holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
References
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
References
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
References
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
References