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 California, San FranciscoUniversity of California, San Francisco
VS
Penn State UniversityPenn State University
University of California, San Francisco

University of California, San Francisco

530 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, California, US, 94122

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ucsf.edu
688/1000Weak

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...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:21,346
Subsidiaries:57
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Penn State University

Penn State University

201 Old Main, University Park, pa, US, 16802-1589

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://psu.edu
817/1000Good

There’s a reason Penn State consistently ranks among the top one percent of the world’s universities. Across 24 campuses, our nearly 88,000 students and 17,000 faculty and staff know the real measure of success goes beyond the classroom—it’s the positive impact made on ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:31,777
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of California, San Francisco

University of California, San Francisco

-
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
Penn State University

Penn State 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 University of California, San Francisco in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Penn State University in 2026.

Incidents

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.

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

Incident History - Penn State University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Penn State University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
University of California, San Francisco

University of California, San Francisco

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UCS000122224
Penn State University

Penn State University

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9