Comparison Overview
University of California, San Francisco
University of California, San Francisco
530 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, California, US, 94122
Last Update: 01/04/2026
UC San Francisco is driven by the idea that when the best research, the best education and the best patient care converge, great breakthroughs are achieved. We pursue this integrated excellence with singular focus, fueled by collaboration among our top-ranked profession...
Georgia State University
33 Gilmer St. SE, Atlanta, GA, US, 30303
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Georgia State is an urban public research university and national model for student success in Atlanta, the cultural and economic center of the Southeast. The largest university in the state and one of the largest in the nation, Georgia State provides its faculty and mo...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
University of California, San Francisco
Georgia State University
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for University of California, San Francisco in 2026.
Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Georgia State University in 2026.
Incident History - University of California, San Francisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)
University of California, San Francisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Georgia State University (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Georgia State University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
University of California, San Francisco
Georgia State University
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=login2. The manipulation of the argument email leads to sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
A flaw was found in the ipa_getkeytab module of the community.general Ansible collection. The module's bind_pw parameter, used to supply the LDAP simple-bind password when retrieving a Kerberos keytab, is not declared with no_log, unlike the sibling password parameter in the same module. As a consequence, the supplied IPA/LDAP bind password is recorded in cleartext in the managed host's system journal/syslog (the module's "Invoked with" record), is included in the module's return values and verbose (-v) output, and is displayed in Automation Controller / AWX job output. The password is additionally passed on the command line to the ipa-getkeytab helper (as --bindpw <value>), exposing it in the process list to local users while the command runs. An attacker able to read these logs, job output, or the process table can obtain the directory bind credential, potentially compromising the accounts and objects that credential can access.
The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forgery (SSRF).
disconf (Distributed Configuration Management Platform) 2.6.36 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The config-fetching APIs /api/config/item, /api/config/file, /api/config/list and /api/config/simple/list are exposed without authentication. The LoginInterceptor explicitly whitelists these four paths, so any anonymous attacker can read every configuration item and configuration file managed by the config center.
Funiture 1.0.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the backend tool interfaces /sys/tool/select.json and /sys/tool/update.json.