Comparison Overview

The Ohio State University

VS

The University of Alabama

The Ohio State University

190 N Oval Mall, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 800 and 849

One of the largest universities in the United States, The Ohio State University is a leading research university and the model for Ohio's public higher education institutes. Founded in 1870 as a land-grant university, it consistently ranks as one of the top public universities in the United States. The main campus is located in Columbus, and regional campuses are located in Lima, Mansfield, Marion, Newark and Wooster.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 29,652
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

The University of Alabama

739 University Blvd, Tuscaloosa, al, 35487-0166, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

The University of Alabama is a student-centered research university and an academic community committed to enhancing the quality of life for all through breakthrough research. Founded in 1831 as Alabama's first public college, The University of Alabama is dedicated to excellence in teaching, research and service. Our campus is a creative environment where students and scholars are equipped to become their best. Taught by leading faculty in their fields, our students make a positive impact in the community, the state and the world. UA’s history of success sets an expectation of greatness for the future. That is an expectation we will deliver. The University of Alabama is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, age, genetic or family medical history information, disability, protected veteran status, or any other legally protected basis, and will not be discriminated against because of their protected status. Applicants to and employees of this institution are protected under Federal law from discrimination on several bases.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 12,315
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-ohio-state-university.jpeg
The Ohio State University
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/university-of-alabama.jpeg
The University of Alabama
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
The Ohio State University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The University of Alabama
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Ohio State University in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Alabama in 2025.

Incident History — The Ohio State University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Ohio State University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

The University of Alabama cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-ohio-state-university.jpeg
The Ohio State University
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-alabama.jpeg
The University of Alabama
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2009
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Login
Blog: Blog

FAQ

The Ohio State University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The University of Alabama company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The University of Alabama company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The Ohio State University company has not reported any.

In the current year, The University of Alabama company and The Ohio State University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The University of Alabama company nor The Ohio State University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The University of Alabama company nor The Ohio State University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The University of Alabama company nor The Ohio State University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Ohio State University company nor The University of Alabama company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The University of Alabama company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The Ohio State University company.

The Ohio State University company employs more people globally than The University of Alabama company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Ohio State University nor The University of Alabama holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H