Comparison Overview

RMIT University

VS

Brigham Young University

RMIT University

124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, Victoria, AU, 3000
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 800 and 849

RMIT is a global university of technology, design and enterprise. One of Australia's original tertiary institutions, RMIT University enjoys an international reputation for excellence in professional and vocational education, applied research, and engagement with the needs of industry and the community. RMIT is a world leader in Art and Design; Architecture and the Built Environment; Engineering; Accounting and Finance; and Business and Management Studies. CRICOS provider code: 00122A

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 14,071
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Brigham Young University

Main Campus, Provo, UT, US, 84602
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

We believe a world yearning for hope and joy needs the graduates of Brigham Young University—disciples of Jesus Christ who are driven by love for God and His children and who are prepared to serve and lead. This preparation demands a unique university model: at BYU, belief enhances inquiry, study amplifies faith, and revelation leads to rich understanding; at BYU, helping students develop their full divine potential is central to both our teaching and our scholarship. As the flagship higher education institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, BYU strives to be among the exceptional universities in the world and an essential university for the world.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 16,356
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rmit-university.jpeg
RMIT 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/brigham-young-university.jpeg
Brigham Young 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
Compliance Summary
RMIT University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Brigham Young University
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RMIT University in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brigham Young University in 2025.

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

RMIT University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Brigham Young University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rmit-university.jpeg
RMIT University
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brigham-young-university.jpeg
Brigham Young University
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2012
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Motivation: Accidental
Blog: Blog

FAQ

RMIT University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Brigham Young University company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Brigham Young University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas RMIT University company has not reported any.

In the current year, Brigham Young University company and RMIT University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Brigham Young University company nor RMIT University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Brigham Young University company nor RMIT University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Brigham Young University company nor RMIT University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RMIT University company nor Brigham Young University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

RMIT University company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Brigham Young University company.

Brigham Young University company employs more people globally than RMIT University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RMIT University nor Brigham Young University 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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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
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.

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