Comparison Overview

The University of Texas at Austin

VS

University of Connecticut

The University of Texas at Austin

1 University Station, Austin, TX, US, 78712
Last Update: 2026-01-24
Between 800 and 849

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, 16 colleges and schools and more than 50,000 students.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 26,129
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Connecticut

352 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, US, 06269
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

The University of Connecticut (UConn), a Wall Street Journal top 10 public university, is home to more than 32,000 students, 1,500 faculty, 255,000 proud alumni, and a handsome husky named Jonathan. The University has fourteen schools and colleges: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Business, Dental Medicine, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Law, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Social Work. Students can choose from eight undergraduate bachelor's degrees with 102 possible majors, as well as seventeen graduate/doctoral degrees and five professional degree programs (MD, JD, etc.). UConn's main campus in Storrs is admitting the highest-achieving freshmen in University history. Student diversity continues to increase, as does the number of honors students, valedictorians and salutatorians who consistently make UConn their top choice. It's a great time to be a Husky!

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 13,623
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/theuniversityoftexasataustin-.jpeg
The University of Texas at Austin
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-connecticut.jpeg
University of Connecticut
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 Texas at Austin
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Connecticut
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 Texas at Austin in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Connecticut in 2026.

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

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

University of Connecticut cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/theuniversityoftexasataustin-.jpeg
The University of Texas at Austin
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-connecticut.jpeg
University of Connecticut
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The University of Texas at Austin company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Connecticut company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, University of Connecticut company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The University of Texas at Austin company.

In the current year, University of Connecticut company and The University of Texas at Austin company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Connecticut company nor The University of Texas at Austin company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Connecticut company nor The University of Texas at Austin company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Connecticut company nor The University of Texas at Austin company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin company nor University of Connecticut company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The University of Texas at Austin company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Connecticut company.

The University of Texas at Austin company employs more people globally than University of Connecticut company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Texas at Austin nor University of Connecticut holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.