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

Comparison Overview

Stanford OnlineStanford Online
VS
Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University
Stanford Online

Stanford Online

408 Panama Mall, Stanford, 94305, US

Last Update: 08/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://online.stanford.edu/
772/1000Fair

You can gain access to a world of education through Stanford Online, the Stanford School of Engineering’s portal for academic and professional education offered by schools and units throughout Stanford University. Our robust catalog of degree programs, credit-bearing e...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:70
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

805 Rudder Tower, College Station, TX, US, 77843

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://tamu.edu
758/1000Fair

Texas A&M University has a proud history that stretches back to 1876 when The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas became the first public institution of higher learning in the state of Texas. Nestled in the heart of the Houston-Dallas-Austin triangle, Texas A&M...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:30,253
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Stanford Online

Stanford Online

-
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
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M 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 Online in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas A&M University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Stanford Online (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanford Online cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Texas A&M University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas A&M 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 Online

Stanford Online

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
XERTEX1781864792

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2