Comparison Overview

Stanford University

VS

Columbia University

Stanford University

450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, 94305, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 800 and 849

Stanford is a place of discovery, creativity and innovation located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the ancestral land of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Dedicated to our founding mission—benefitting society through research and education—we are working toward a sustainable future, accelerating the impact of research with external partners, catalyzing discoveries about ourselves and our world, and educating students as global citizens. Our main campus, which welcomed its first class in 1891, is now home to 650+ student organizations, 36 varsity athletic teams, 20 libraries, 21 living Nobel laureates, 18 interdisciplinary research institutes, seven schools, and a vibrant arts scene. More than 9,000 graduate students and 7,000 undergraduates pursue studies at Stanford each year. Our financial aid program, one of the most generous in the nation, makes it possible for any admitted undergraduate to attend without taking on student debt.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 27,172
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Columbia University

West 116 Street and Broadway, New York, NY, 10027, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

For more than 250 years, Columbia has been a leader in higher education in the nation and around the world. At the core of our wide range of academic inquiry is the commitment to attract and engage the best minds in pursuit of greater human understanding, pioneering new discoveries and service to society.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 23,244
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/stanford-university.jpeg
Stanford 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/columbia-university.jpeg
Columbia 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
Stanford University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Columbia University
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 in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Columbia University in 2025.

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

Stanford University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Columbia University 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.jpeg
Stanford University
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/columbia-university.jpeg
Columbia University
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Columbia University company and Stanford University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Columbia University company nor Stanford University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Stanford University company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Columbia University company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Columbia University company nor Stanford University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Stanford University company nor Columbia University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Stanford University company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Columbia University company.

Stanford University company employs more people globally than Columbia University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Stanford University nor Columbia 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