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 FloridaUniversity of Florida
VS
Stanford UniversityStanford University
University of Florida

University of Florida

355 Tigert Hall, Gainesville, Florida, US, 32611-3115

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://UF.edu
814/1000Good

University of Florida is a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university. The state's oldest, largest and most comprehensive university, it is among the nation's most academically diverse public universities. University of Florida has a long history of e...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:30,956
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Stanford University

Stanford University

450 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA, US, 94305

Last Update: 08/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://stanford.edu
704/1000Moderate

Stanford is a place of discovery, creativity and innovation located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the ancestral land of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. Dedicated to our founding mission—benefitting society through research and education—we are working toward a sustainable ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:27,864
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of Florida

University of Florida

-
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
Stanford University

Stanford 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 Florida in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

Stanford University has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - University of Florida (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Florida cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Stanford 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...
University of Florida

University of Florida

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stanford University

Stanford University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNISTAINSHAR1778200829
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STAVICINSHAR1778218101
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA