Comparison Overview

University of Alabama at Birmingham

VS

York 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

York University

4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Toronto, on, CA, M3J 1P3
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799
http://yorku.ca/

York University is a diverse community of students, faculty, and staff driving positive change. As one of the largest post-secondary communities in the world and with a uniquely global perspective, we are driven by passion and purpose as part of a forward-thinking collective bringing enduring values and new ideas to complex societal challenges. The York University staff and faculty community benefit from opportunities for career advancement, learning and development, and personal growth while creating positive change for our students and broader communities.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 10,975
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

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/york-university.jpeg
York 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
York 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 York 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 — York University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

York 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/york-university.jpeg
York University
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

York 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.

York University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Alabama at Birmingham company has not reported any.

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

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

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

York University company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while University of Alabama at Birmingham company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both York University company and University of Alabama at Birmingham company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham nor York 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