Comparison Overview

Universität Innsbruck

VS

New York University

Universität Innsbruck

Innrain 52, Innsbruck, tirol, AT, 6020
Last Update: 2025-12-20
Between 700 and 749

The University of Innsbruck (German: Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck) is one of the major Austrian universities and has been founded in 1669. It is currently the largest research and education institution in Tyrol and third largest in Austria according to student population. Four researchers at the University of Innsbruck were distinguished as nobel laureates.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 3,478
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

New York University

70 Washington Sq South, New York, NY, US, 10012-1091
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 1831, NYU is one of the world’s foremost research universities and is a member of the selective Association of American Universities. The first Global Network University, NYU has degree-granting university campuses in New York and Abu Dhabi, and has announced a third in Shanghai; has a dozen other global academic sites, including London, Paris, Florence, Tel Aviv, Buenos Aires, and Accra; and sends more students to study abroad than any other U.S. college or university. Through its numerous schools and colleges, NYU conducts research and provides education in the arts and sciences, law, medicine, business, dentistry, education, nursing, the cinematic and performing arts, music and studio arts, public administration, social work, and continuing and professional studies, among other areas.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 25,592
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uniinnsbruck.jpeg
Universität Innsbruck
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-york-university.jpeg
New York University
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Universität Innsbruck
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
New York University
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Universität Innsbruck in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for New York University in 2025.

Incident History — Universität Innsbruck (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Universität Innsbruck cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — New York University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

New York University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uniinnsbruck.jpeg
Universität Innsbruck
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unlawful data request
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/new-york-university.jpeg
New York University
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Accidental Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/1989
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Website Defacement
Motivation: Response to a Supreme Court decision on affirmative action
Blog: Blog

FAQ

New York University company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Universität Innsbruck company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

New York University company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Universität Innsbruck company.

In the current year, New York University company and Universität Innsbruck company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither New York University company nor Universität Innsbruck company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

New York University company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Universität Innsbruck company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither New York University company nor Universität Innsbruck company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Universität Innsbruck company nor New York University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

New York University company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Universität Innsbruck company.

New York University company employs more people globally than Universität Innsbruck company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Universität Innsbruck nor New York University holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Versions starting with 0.211.0 and prior to 1.120.4, 1.121.1, and 1.122.0 contain a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability in their workflow expression evaluation system. Under certain conditions, expressions supplied by authenticated users during workflow configuration may be evaluated in an execution context that is not sufficiently isolated from the underlying runtime. An authenticated attacker could abuse this behavior to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the n8n process. Successful exploitation may lead to full compromise of the affected instance, including unauthorized access to sensitive data, modification of workflows, and execution of system-level operations. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.120.4, 1.121.1, and 1.122.0. Users are strongly advised to upgrade to a patched version, which introduces additional safeguards to restrict expression evaluation. If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should consider the following temporary mitigations: Limit workflow creation and editing permissions to fully trusted users only; and/or deploy n8n in a hardened environment with restricted operating system privileges and network access to reduce the impact of potential exploitation. These workarounds do not fully eliminate the risk and should only be used as short-term measures.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

FastAPI Users allows users to quickly add a registration and authentication system to their FastAPI project. Prior to version 15.0.2, the OAuth login state tokens are completely stateless and carry no per-request entropy or any data that could link them to the session that initiated the OAuth flow. `generate_state_token()` is always called with an empty `state_data` dict, so the resulting JWT only contains the fixed audience claim plus an expiration timestamp. On callback, the library merely checks that the JWT verifies under `state_secret` and is unexpired; there is no attempt to match the state value to the browser that initiated the OAuth request, no correlation cookie, and no server-side cache. Any attacker can hit `/authorize`, capture the server-generated state, finish the upstream OAuth flow with their own provider account, and then trick a victim into loading `.../callback?code=<attacker_code>&state=<attacker_state>`. Because the state JWT is valid for any client for \~1 hour, the victim’s browser will complete the flow. This leads to login CSRF. Depending on the app’s logic, the login CSRF can lead to an account takeover of the victim account or to the victim user getting logged in to the attacker's account. Version 15.0.2 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

FileZilla Client 3.63.1 contains a DLL hijacking vulnerability that allows attackers to execute malicious code by placing a crafted TextShaping.dll in the application directory. Attackers can generate a reverse shell payload using msfvenom and replace the missing DLL to achieve remote code execution when the application launches.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

LDAP Tool Box Self Service Password 1.5.2 contains a password reset vulnerability that allows attackers to manipulate HTTP Host headers during token generation. Attackers can craft malicious password reset requests that generate tokens sent to a controlled server, enabling potential account takeover by intercepting and using stolen reset tokens.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

Kimai 1.30.10 contains a SameSite cookie vulnerability that allows attackers to steal user session cookies through malicious exploitation. Attackers can trick victims into executing a crafted PHP script that captures and writes session cookie information to a file, enabling potential session hijacking.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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