Comparison Overview

The University of New Mexico

VS

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The University of New Mexico

1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, nm, US, 87131
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1889, The University of New Mexico now occupies 600 acres along old Route 66 in the heart of Albuquerque, a city of more than 700,000 people. From the magnificent mesas to the west, past the banks of the historic Rio Grande to the Sandia Mountains to the east, Albuquerque is a blend of culture and cuisine, styles and stories, people, pursuits and panoramas. Offering a distinctive campus environment with a Pueblo Revival architectural theme, the campus echoes the buildings of nearby Pueblo Indian villages. The nationally recognized Campus Arboretum and the popular Duck Pond offer an outstanding botanical experience in the midst of one of New Mexico's great public open spaces.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,091
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

103 South Building, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Carolina’s vibrant people and programs attest to the University’s long-standing place among leaders in higher education since it was chartered in 1789 and opened its doors for students in 1795 as the nation’s first public university. Situated in the beautiful college town of Chapel Hill, N.C., UNC has earned a reputation as one of the best universities in the world. Carolina prides itself on a strong, diverse student body, academic opportunities not found anywhere else, and a value unmatched by any public university in the nation. UNC-Chapel Hill's LinkedIn comments guidelines: Thank you for liking the LinkedIn page of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This page highlights information about the people and programs at Carolina. Consistent with UNC-Chapel Hill’s Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment and Related Misconduct, and the North Carolina Campus Free Speech Act, we encourage your comments and opinions as they relate to our posts. This page is actively monitored for relevance. Carolina reserves the right to remove any comments that are not related to the particular post, make unsupported accusations, contain ad-hominem attacks, use obscene language or images, are blatant spam, contain advertisements, or contain inappropriate personal information or sensitive information. Repeated violation of these guidelines or behavior that substantially disrupts the maintenance of this page could result in a user being blocked from the page. Thanks for keeping the page enjoyable for everyone. Go Tar Heels!

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,627
Subsidiaries: 11
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-university-of-new-mexico.jpeg
The University of New Mexico
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-north-carolina-at-chapel-hill.jpeg
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
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 University of New Mexico
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of New Mexico in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2025.

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

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

Incident History — University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-university-of-new-mexico.jpeg
The University of New Mexico
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-north-carolina-at-chapel-hill.jpeg
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Phishing Email
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2017
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

The University of New Mexico company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas The University of New Mexico company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company and The University of New Mexico company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company nor The University of New Mexico company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company nor The University of New Mexico company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company nor The University of New Mexico company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The University of New Mexico company nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The University of New Mexico company.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill company employs more people globally than The University of New Mexico company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of New Mexico nor University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 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