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

Comparison Overview

Texas Development - UT AustinTexas Development - UT Austin
VS
The University of Texas at AustinThe University of Texas at Austin
Texas Development - UT Austin

Texas Development - UT Austin

N/A

Last Update: 21/03/2026

View Profile
787/1000Fair

What starts here changes the world. What starts here starts with you. With our donors' support, The University of Texas at Austin will become the world’s highest-impact public research university, unleashing knowledge, opportunity and innovation from the heart of Texas...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The University of Texas at Austin

The University of Texas at Austin

1 University Station, Austin, TX, US, 78712

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.utexas.edu/
815/1000Good

The University of Texas at Austin is one of the largest public universities in the United States. Founded in 1883, the University has grown from a single building, eight teachers, two departments and 221 students to a 350-acre main campus with 21,000 faculty and staff, ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:26,129
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Texas Development - UT Austin

Texas Development - UT Austin

-
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
The University of Texas at Austin

The University of Texas at Austin

-
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 Texas Development - UT Austin in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Texas at Austin in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Texas Development - UT Austin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Development - UT Austin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - The University of Texas at Austin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Texas at Austin 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...
Texas Development - UT Austin

Texas Development - UT Austin

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The University of Texas at Austin

The University of Texas at Austin

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1