Comparison Overview

State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill

VS

University of Oxford

State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill

SUNY Cobleskill, State Route 7, Cobleskill, New York 12043, Cobleskill, NY, 12043, US
Last Update: 2025-03-04 (UTC)
Between 750 and 799

The State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill has a rich academic tradition that spans nearly 100 years. Today, over 2,500 students are enrolled in the 52 associate and baccalaureate degree programs offered through The School of Agriculture and Natural Resources and The School of Business and Liberal Arts & Sciences.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 316
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Oxford

Last Update: 2024-06-26 (UTC)
Between 800 and 849

Ranked number one in the world in the 2023 Times Higher Education World Rankings, we are at the forefront of the full range of academic disciplines, including medical sciences; mathematical, physical and life sciences; humanities; and social sciences. As the oldest university in the English-speaking world, we have long traditions of scholarship, but we are also forward-looking, creative and cutting-edge. Oxford is one of Europe's most entrepreneurial universities: we rank first in the UK for university spin-outs, with more than 130 companies created to date. We are also recognised as leaders in support for social enterprise. Find out more about what makes Oxford so special at www.ox.ac.uk. We’re all about encouraging conversation, but we have some house rules. Content we will remove: * Spam: any type of sales, buying or selling, or self-promotion, legal or illegal, will be removed. * Links: to prevent the spread of misinformation, spam, malware, or potentially inappropriate content, comments featuring a link to another site will be removed, regardless of the URL included. * Problem comments: any type of repeated comment, explicit comment, unrelated comment, or misleading comment will be deleted and users may be banned. If an accusation has been made and a name used this will be hidden, and could result in legal repercussions if the person or entity named decides it is libellous. * Hate speech: racism, sexism (this includes leaving disrespectful or explicit comments to other users), religious discrimination, homophobia and trolling are all completely unacceptable to the University of Oxford. Users who engage in any of these activities will be banned. Please be: * Respectful of other people’s opinions * Aware that your comments are public

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,019
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/suny-cobleskill.jpeg
State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill
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/oxforduni.jpeg
University of Oxford
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
State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Oxford
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Oxford in 2025.

Incident History — State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/suny-cobleskill.jpeg
State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/oxforduni.jpeg
University of Oxford
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing, Spoofed Websites
Motivation: Financial Gain, Espionage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

University of Oxford company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Oxford company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Oxford company and State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Oxford company nor State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Oxford company has disclosed at least one data breach, while State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Oxford company nor State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company nor University of Oxford company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Oxford company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company.

University of Oxford company employs more people globally than State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds HIPAA certification.

Neither State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill nor University of Oxford holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Deck Mate 1 executes firmware directly from an external EEPROM without verifying authenticity or integrity. An attacker with physical access can replace or reflash the EEPROM to run arbitrary code that persists across reboots. Because this design predates modern secure-boot or signed-update mechanisms, affected systems should be physically protected or retired from service. The vendor has not indicated that firmware updates are available for this legacy model.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2 lacks a verified secure-boot chain and runtime integrity validation for its controller and display modules. Without cryptographic boot verification, an attacker with physical access can modify or replace the bootloader, kernel, or filesystem and gain persistent code execution on reboot. This weakness allows long-term firmware tampering that survives power cycles. The vendor indicates that more recent firmware updates strengthen update-chain integrity and disable physical update ports to mitigate related attack avenues.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Deck Mate 2's firmware update mechanism accepts packages without cryptographic signature verification, encrypts them with a single hard-coded AES key shared across devices, and uses a truncated HMAC for integrity validation. Attackers with access to the update interface - typically via the unit's USB update port - can craft or modify firmware packages to execute arbitrary code as root, allowing persistent compromise of the device's integrity and deck randomization process. Physical or on-premises access remains the most likely attack path, though network-exposed or telemetry-enabled deployments could theoretically allow remote exploitation if misconfigured. The vendor confirmed that firmware updates have been issued to correct these update-chain weaknesses and that USB update access has been disabled on affected units.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS bc-fips on All (API modules), Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. Bouncy Castle for Java LTS bcprov-lts8on on All (API modules) allows Excessive Allocation. This vulnerability is associated with program files core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/fips/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCFB.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeEngine.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCBC.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeGCMSIV.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCCM.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/engines/AESNativeCTR.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA256NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA224NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA3NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHAKENativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA512NativeDigest.Java, core/src/main/jdk1.9/org/bouncycastle/crypto/digests/SHA384NativeDigest.Java. This issue affects Bouncy Castle for Java FIPS: from 2.1.0 through 2.1.1; Bouncy Castle for Java LTS: from 2.73.0 through 2.73.7.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/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:P/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Wasmtime is a runtime for WebAssembly. In versions from 38.0.0 to before 38.0.3, the implementation of component-model related host-to-wasm trampolines in Wasmtime contained a bug where it's possible to carefully craft a component, which when called in a specific way, would crash the host with a segfault or assert failure. Wasmtime 38.0.3 has been released and is patched to fix this issue. There are no workarounds.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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