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

Comparison Overview

Stanford UniversityStanford University
VS
George Mason UniversityGeorge Mason University
Stanford University

Stanford University

450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, US, 94305

Last Update: 08/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://stanford.edu
704/1000Moderate

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 ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:27,864
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
George Mason University

George Mason University

4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia , US, 22030

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://gmu.edu
797/1000Fair

George Mason University is Virginia’s largest and most diverse public research university. Located near Washington, D.C., Mason enrolls more than 40,000 students from 130 countries and 50 states, and has a residential population of more than 6,000 students. Mason has gr...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:10,707
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Stanford University

Stanford 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
George Mason University

George Mason 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)

Stanford University has 75.44% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for George Mason University in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - George Mason University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

George Mason University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Stanford University

Stanford University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNISTAINSHAR1778200829
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STAVICINSHAR1778218101
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906
George Mason University

George Mason University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8