Comparison Overview

UC San Diego

VS

Baylor College of Medicine

UC San Diego

9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, US, 92093
Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://http://ucsd.edu

Recognized as one of the top 15 research universities worldwide, our culture of collaboration sparks discoveries that advance society and drive economic impact. Everything we do is dedicated to ensuring our students have the opportunity to become changemakers, equipped with the multidisciplinary tools needed to accelerate answers to our world’s most pressing issues.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 21,735
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
3
View Profile

Baylor College of Medicine

One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas, US, 77030-3498
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bcm.edu/

Baylor College of Medicine is a health sciences university that creates knowledge and applies science and discoveries to further education, healthcare and community service locally and globally. Located in the Texas Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine has affiliations with eight teaching hospitals, each known for medical excellence. The college has total research support of over $400 million annually, and more than 90 research and patient-care centers and units. Currently, Baylor College of Medicine trains more than 3,000 medical, graduate, nurse anesthesia, physician assistant, orthotics and prosthetics and genetic counseling students, as well as residents and post-doctoral fellows.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 13,389
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ucsandiego.jpeg
UC San Diego
—
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/baylor-college-of-medicine.jpeg
Baylor College of Medicine
—
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
UC San Diego
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Baylor College of Medicine
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UC San Diego in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baylor College of Medicine in 2026.

Incident History — UC San Diego (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UC San Diego cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Baylor College of Medicine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baylor College of Medicine cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ucsandiego.jpeg
UC San Diego
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baylor-college-of-medicine.jpeg
Baylor College of Medicine
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

UC San Diego company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Baylor College of Medicine company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UC San Diego company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Baylor College of Medicine company has not reported any.

In the current year, Baylor College of Medicine company and UC San Diego company have not reported any cyber incidents.

UC San Diego company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Baylor College of Medicine company has not reported such incidents publicly.

UC San Diego company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Baylor College of Medicine company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Baylor College of Medicine company nor UC San Diego company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither UC San Diego company nor Baylor College of Medicine company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

UC San Diego company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Baylor College of Medicine company.

UC San Diego company employs more people globally than Baylor College of Medicine company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds HIPAA certification.

Neither UC San Diego nor Baylor College of Medicine holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
References
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
References
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References