Comparison Overview

Delft University of Technology

VS

Utrecht University

Delft University of Technology

Mekelweg 5, Delft, Delft, NL, 2628CC
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) is a leading technical university in the Netherlands, known for our world-class engineering, science and design education. We offer top-ranked education and PhD programmes, and we conduct cutting-edge research that addresses global challenges. TU Delft plays a key role in innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the development of future-proof, knowledge-driven solutions. As the largest and most complete university for engineering sciences in the Netherlands, TU Delft educates nearly half of all Dutch science and engineering students. Almost one hundred percent of our graduates secure employment within one year. Our goal is to remain a global leader in technical education and to continue to contribute to a knowledge-driven, future-proof economy.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 10,013
Subsidiaries: 11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Utrecht University

Heidelberglaan 6, Utrecht, Utrecht, 3512, NL
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

At Utrecht University (UU), we are working towards a better world. We do this by researching complex issues beyond the borders of disciplines. We put thinkers in contact with doers, so new insights can be applied. We give students the space to develop themselves. In so doing, we make substantial contributions to society, both now and in the future.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 11,302
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tudelft.jpeg
Delft University of Technology
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/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht 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
Compliance Summary
Delft University of Technology
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Utrecht University
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Delft University of Technology in 2026.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Utrecht University in 2026.

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

Delft University of Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Utrecht University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tudelft.jpeg
Delft University of Technology
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht University
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Delft University of Technology company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Utrecht University company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Utrecht University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Delft University of Technology company has not reported any.

In the current year, Utrecht University company and Delft University of Technology company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Utrecht University company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Delft University of Technology company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Utrecht University company nor Delft University of Technology company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Utrecht University company nor Delft University of Technology company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Delft University of Technology company nor Utrecht University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Delft University of Technology company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Utrecht University company.

Utrecht University company employs more people globally than Delft University of Technology company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Delft University of Technology nor Utrecht University holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N