Comparison Overview

University of Alabama at Birmingham

VS

Cornell University

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Administration Bldg Suite 1070, BIRMINGHAM, AL, US, 35294-0110
Last Update: 2025-12-17
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://uab.edu

Known for its innovative and interdisciplinary approach to education at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a part of the University of Alabama System, is an internationally renowned research university and academic medical center with over $700 million in research awards annually, as well as Alabama’s largest single employer, with some 26,000 employees, and has an annual economic impact exceeding $7.15 billion on the state. The pillars of UAB’s mission include education, research, innovation and economic development, community engagement, and patient care. Learn more at www.uab.edu.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 16,187
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Cornell University

Day Hall, Ithaca, NY, 14853, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849
http://www.cornell.edu/

Cornell is a privately endowed research university and a partner of the State University of New York. As the federal land-grant institution in New York State, we have a responsibility—unique within the Ivy League—to make contributions in all fields of knowledge in a manner that prioritizes public engagement to help improve the quality of life in our state, the nation, the world.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,745
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/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
—
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/cornell-university.jpeg
Cornell 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
University of Alabama at Birmingham
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cornell University
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Alabama at Birmingham in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cornell University in 2025.

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

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

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

Cornell University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cornell-university.jpeg
Cornell University
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cornell University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Alabama at Birmingham company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Cornell University company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to University of Alabama at Birmingham company.

In the current year, Cornell University company and University of Alabama at Birmingham company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cornell University company nor University of Alabama at Birmingham company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cornell University company nor University of Alabama at Birmingham company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cornell University company nor University of Alabama at Birmingham company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor Cornell University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Alabama at Birmingham company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cornell University company.

Cornell University company employs more people globally than University of Alabama at Birmingham company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor Cornell University holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Versa SASE Client for Windows versions released between 7.8.7 and 7.9.4 contain a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the audit log export functionality. The client communicates user-controlled file paths to a privileged service, which performs file system operations without impersonating the requesting user. Due to improper privilege handling and a time-of-check time-of-use race condition combined with symbolic link and mount point manipulation, a local authenticated attacker can coerce the service into deleting arbitrary directories with SYSTEM privileges. This can be exploited to delete protected system folders such as C:\\Config.msi and subsequently achieve execution as NT AUTHORITY\\SYSTEM via MSI rollback techniques.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' function in all versions up to, and including, 7.7. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to inject cross-site scripting into the 'status' parameter of applied jobs for any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L
References
Description

The WP JobHunt plugin for WordPress, used by the JobCareer theme, is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 7.7 via the 'cs_update_application_status_callback' due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Candidate-level access and above, to send a site-generated email with injected HTML to any user.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The FiboSearch – Ajax Search for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's `thegem_te_search` shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 1.32.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This vulnerability requires TheGem theme (premium) to be installed with Header Builder mode enabled, and the FiboSearch "Replace search bars" option enabled for TheGem integration.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

The Ultimate Member – User Profile, Registration, Login, Member Directory, Content Restriction & Membership Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 2.11.0 via the ajax_get_members function. This is due to the use of a predictable low-entropy token (5 hex characters derived from md5 of post ID) to identify member directories and insufficient authorization checks on the unauthenticated AJAX endpoint. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract sensitive data including usernames, display names, user roles (including administrator accounts), profile URLs, and user IDs by enumerating predictable directory_id values or brute-forcing the small 16^5 token space.

Published
Date
2025-12-20
Updated
Date
2025-12-20
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
References