Comparison Overview
University of Arizona Health Sciences

University of Arizona Health Sciences
Health Sciences Innovation Building (HSIB), Tucson, 85721, US
Last Update: 15/12/2025
The University of Arizona Health Sciences reaches across the state and well beyond its borders to provide health-care education, research, patient care and service for Arizonans and their neighbors. Arizona’s only academic health center, UArizona Health Sciences is ba...

Cornell University
Day Hall, Ithaca, NY, US, 14853
Last Update: 13/09/2026
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 man...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

University of Arizona Health Sciences







Cornell University






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for University of Arizona Health Sciences in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Cornell University in 2026.
Incident History - University of Arizona Health Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)
University of Arizona Health Sciences 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

University of Arizona Health Sciences

Cornell University
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.