Comparison Overview

Stanford University School of Medicine

VS

University of Birmingham

Stanford University School of Medicine

291 Campus Dr, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://med.stanford.edu

Stanford Medicine improves health through leadership, diversity and collaborative discoveries and innovation in health care, education and research. The Stanford School of Medicine is a premier setting for integrated research, medical education and clinical care. As the academic hub of Stanford Medicine, which also comprises adult and pediatric health care delivery systems, it fuels discovery and innovation to advance human health while empowering the medical and scientific leaders of tomorrow. Learn more at med.stanford.edu/school.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 8,798
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
View Profile

University of Birmingham

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, B15 2TT, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for the University of Birmingham . We have been challenging and developing great minds for more than a century. Characterised by a tradition of innovation, research at the University has broken new ground, pushed forward the boundaries of knowledge and made an impact on people’s lives. View our comment moderation policy here: https://linktr.ee/unibirmingham

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 13,839
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanford-university-school-of-medicine.jpeg
Stanford University School of Medicine
—
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/university-of-birmingham.jpeg
University of Birmingham
—
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
Stanford University School of Medicine
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Birmingham
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Stanford University School of Medicine in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Birmingham in 2025.

Incident History — Stanford University School of Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stanford University School of Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanford-university-school-of-medicine.jpeg
Stanford University School of Medicine
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2019
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: URL Manipulation
Motivation: Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Information
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-birmingham.jpeg
University of Birmingham
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

University of Birmingham company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Stanford University School of Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Stanford University School of Medicine company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to University of Birmingham company.

In the current year, University of Birmingham company and Stanford University School of Medicine company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Birmingham company nor Stanford University School of Medicine company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both University of Birmingham company and Stanford University School of Medicine company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither University of Birmingham company nor Stanford University School of Medicine company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine company nor University of Birmingham company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Stanford University School of Medicine company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Birmingham company.

University of Birmingham company employs more people globally than Stanford University School of Medicine company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Stanford University School of Medicine nor University of Birmingham 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