Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

University of CalgaryUniversity of Calgary
VS
University of Colorado BoulderUniversity of Colorado Boulder
University of Calgary

University of Calgary

2500 University Dr NW Calgary, T2N 1N4, Calgary, Alberta, CA, T2N1N4

Last Update: 08/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ucalgary.ca
721/1000Moderate

The University of Calgary is a leading Canadian university located in the nation's most enterprising city. Self-discovery starts at UCalgary. Focus your potential through innovative learning experiences, bold discoveries and lifelong connections. Find your starting line...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:14,600
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
University of Colorado Boulder

University of Colorado Boulder

914 Broadway St, Boulder, Colorado, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://colorado.edu
765/1000Fair

The University of Colorado Boulder is Colorado’s leading public research university, transforming lives since 1876. As the state's flagship university and one of only 38 U.S. public research institutions in the Association of American Universities (AAU), CU Boulder has...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:16,037
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of Calgary

University of Calgary

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
University of Colorado Boulder

University of Colorado Boulder

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

University of Calgary has 40.83% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Colorado Boulder in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - University of Calgary (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Calgary cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - University of Colorado Boulder (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Colorado Boulder cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
University of Calgary

University of Calgary

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UCA1783485000
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNI21245123
University of Colorado Boulder

University of Colorado Boulder

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
UNI222771222

FAQ

Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between University of Calgary company and University of Colorado Boulder company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between University of Calgary and University of Colorado Boulder, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between University of Calgary and University of Colorado Boulder, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - University of Calgary or University of Colorado Boulder ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - University of Calgary or University of Colorado Boulder ?
Between University of Calgary and University of Colorado Boulder, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between University of Calgary and University of Colorado Boulder, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA