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

Comparison Overview

Stanford Department of MedicineStanford Department of Medicine
VS
Arizona State UniversityArizona State University
Stanford Department of Medicine

Stanford Department of Medicine

Palo Alto, 94305, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

The Department of Medicine is committed to setting the highest standards for patient care, ground-breaking biomedical research, professional education, teaching, and training. We are devoted to advancing the science of medicine by developing new methods to prevent, dia...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:107
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Arizona State University

Arizona State University

1151 S Forest Ave, Tempe, AZ, US, 85281

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.asu.edu/
808/1000Good

ASU has developed a new model for the American research university, creating an institution committed to excellence, access and impact — the New American University. Nationally and internationally acclaimed, ASU ranks among the very best in nearly every critical measu...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:29,925
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Stanford Department of Medicine

Stanford Department of Medicine

-
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
Arizona State University

Arizona State 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 Stanford Department of Medicine in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arizona State University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Stanford Department of Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanford Department of Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Arizona State 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...
Stanford Department of Medicine

Stanford Department of Medicine

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STA630080525
Arizona State University

Arizona State University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARI03710423

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8