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
Tecnológico de MonterreyTecnológico de Monterrey
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
Tecnológico de Monterrey

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur, Colonia Tecnológico, Monterrey, nuevo león, MX, 64849

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://tec.mx
817/1000Good

The Tecnológico de Monterrey is a private university system with 33 campuses in 26 cities in Mexico, which serves more than 96,000 students in its high school, undergraduate and graduate programs. It also has liaison offices in 12 countries. Through the promotion of ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:28,161
Subsidiaries:6
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
Tecnológico de Monterrey

Tecnológico de Monterrey

-
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 Tecnológico de Monterrey 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 - Tecnológico de Monterrey (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tecnológico de Monterrey 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
Tecnológico de Monterrey

Tecnológico de Monterrey

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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