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
UNSWUNSW
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
UNSW

UNSW

Gate 9, High St Kensington 2052, Sydney, New South Wales (NSW), AU, 2052

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.unsw.edu.au/
807/1000Good

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) is one of Australia's leading research and teaching universities. Established in 1949, UNSW has expanded rapidly and now has more than 52,000 students, including more than 14,000 international students from over 130 different c...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:17,425
Subsidiaries:30
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
UNSW

UNSW

-
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 UNSW 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 - UNSW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UNSW 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
UNSW

UNSW

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9