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

Comparison Overview

Texas Tech University SystemTexas Tech University System
VS
University of North TexasUniversity of North Texas
Texas Tech University System

Texas Tech University System

1508 Knoxville Ave, Lubbock, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.texastech.edu
682/1000Weak

The Texas Tech University System was formed in 1996 and formally established by the State of Texas three years later in 1999. Since its inception, the TTU System has emerged as one of the top public university systems in the nation and is a dynamic force in higher educa...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:203
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
University of North Texas

University of North Texas

1155 Union Circle #311277, Denton, Tx, US, 76203-1277

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://unt.edu
800/1000Good

Ranked a Tier One research university by the Carnegie Classification, UNT is the flagship of the UNT System and is located in Denton, Texas. With 242 degree programs and a thriving community of nearly 44,000 students, UNT serves the North Texas region and helps drive th...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:12,902
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Texas Tech University System

Texas Tech University System

-
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
University of North Texas

University of North Texas

-
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 Tech University System in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of North Texas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Texas Tech University System (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Tech University System cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - University of North Texas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of North Texas 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 Tech University System

Texas Tech University System

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TEX817071525
University of North Texas

University of North Texas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3