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

Comparison Overview

UC San DiegoUC San Diego
VS
Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University
UC San Diego

UC San Diego

9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, US, 92093

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://ucsd.edu
807/1000Good

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 ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:21,889
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

805 Rudder Tower, College Station, TX, US, 77843

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://tamu.edu
758/1000Fair

Texas A&M University has a proud history that stretches back to 1876 when The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas became the first public institution of higher learning in the state of Texas. Nestled in the heart of the Houston-Dallas-Austin triangle, Texas A&M...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:30,253
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UC San Diego

UC San Diego

-
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
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

-
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)

No incidents recorded for UC San Diego in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas A&M University in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Texas A&M University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas A&M University 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...
UC San Diego

UC San Diego

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
XERTEX1781864792

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2