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
UCLAUCLA
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
UCLA

UCLA

405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA, US, 90095-1405

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://ucla.edu
761/1000Fair

UCLA offers a combination that’s rare, especially among public research universities. The breadth, depth and inspired excellence among academic programs—from the visual and performing arts to the humanities, social sciences, STEM disciplines and health sciences—add up t...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:29,011
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

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
UCLA

UCLA

-
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 UCLA 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 - UCLA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UCLA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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.
UCLA

UCLA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UCL0443723

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44654
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-44653
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-42507
SUMMARY

When returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-42504
SUMMARY

Decoding a maliciously-crafted MIME header containing many invalid encoded-words can consume excessive CPU.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-41412
SUMMARY

alf.io is an open source ticket reservation system for conferences, trade shows, workshops, and meetups. Prior to version 2.0-M5-2606, the alf.io extension sandbox injects a fully-functional HTTP client (`simpleHttpClient`) into every extension script's scope. The `postFileAndSaveResponse()` method accepts an arbitrary filesystem path as its `file` parameter and reads the file contents using `new FileInputStream(file)` with no path validation, directory restriction, or allowlist. A malicious extension script can read any file accessible to the JVM process user and exfiltrate it to an attacker-controlled server via HTTP POST. Version 2.0-M5-2606 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2