Comparison Overview

Utrecht University

VS

King's College London

Utrecht University

Heidelberglaan 6, Utrecht, Utrecht, utrecht, NL, 3512
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 700 and 749

At Utrecht University (UU), we are working towards a better world. We do this by researching complex issues beyond the borders of disciplines. We put thinkers in contact with doers, so new insights can be applied. We give students the space to develop themselves. In so doing, we make substantial contributions to society, both now and in the future.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 11,279
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

King's College London

Strand, London, greater london, WC2R 2LS, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

King’s College London is amongst the top 40 universities in the world and top 10 in Europe (THE World University Rankings 2024), and one of England’s oldest and most prestigious universities. With an outstanding reputation for world-class teaching and cutting-edge research, King’s maintained its sixth position for ‘research power’ in the UK (2021 Research Excellence Framework). King's has more than 33,000 students (including more than 12,800 postgraduates) from some 150 countries worldwide, and 8,500 staff. For nearly 200 years, King’s students and staff have used their knowledge and insight to make a positive impact on people, society and the planet. Focused on delivering positive change at home in London, across the UK and around the world, King’s is building on its history of addressing the world’s most urgent challenges head on to accelerate progress, make discoveries and pioneer innovation. Visit the website to find out more about Vision 2029, which sets out bold ambitions for the future of King’s as we look towards our 200th anniversary. World-changing ideas. Life-changing impact: kcl.ac.uk/news

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 18,644
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht 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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/king's-college-london.jpeg
King's College London
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
Utrecht University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
King's College London
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Utrecht University in 2025.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for King's College London in 2025.

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

Utrecht University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — King's College London (X = Date, Y = Severity)

King's College London cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht University
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/king's-college-london.jpeg
King's College London
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

King's College London company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Utrecht University company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Utrecht University company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas King's College London company has not reported any.

In the current year, King's College London company and Utrecht University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Utrecht University company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while King's College London company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither King's College London company nor Utrecht University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither King's College London company nor Utrecht University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Utrecht University company nor King's College London company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

King's College London company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Utrecht University company.

King's College London company employs more people globally than Utrecht University company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Utrecht University nor King's College London holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H