Comparison Overview

The University of Alabama

VS

The University of Manchester

The University of Alabama

739 University Blvd, Tuscaloosa, al, 35487-0166, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 750 and 799

The University of Alabama is a student-centered research university and an academic community committed to enhancing the quality of life for all through breakthrough research. Founded in 1831 as Alabama's first public college, The University of Alabama is dedicated to excellence in teaching, research and service. Our campus is a creative environment where students and scholars are equipped to become their best. Taught by leading faculty in their fields, our students make a positive impact in the community, the state and the world. UA’s history of success sets an expectation of greatness for the future. That is an expectation we will deliver. The University of Alabama is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, age, genetic or family medical history information, disability, protected veteran status, or any other legally protected basis, and will not be discriminated against because of their protected status. Applicants to and employees of this institution are protected under Federal law from discrimination on several bases.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 12,315
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

The University of Manchester

Oxford Road, Manchester, undefined, M13 9PL, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-18

The University of Manchester is part of the prestigious Russell Group of universities and highly respected across the globe as a centre of teaching excellence and research innovation and discovery. With 25 Nobel Prize winners among our current and former staff and students, we have a history of world firsts, with our impact ranging from splitting the atom to giving the world graphene. Our outstanding facilities and wide range of undergraduate, postgraduate and CPD courses make us one of the most popular universities with students in the UK and internationally. We’re proud to have the largest alumni community of any campus-based university in the UK, with more than 500,000 graduates in more than 190 countries around the world. Our purpose is to advance education, knowledge and wisdom for the good of society, putting our three core goals of research and discovery, teaching and learning, and social responsibility at the heart of everything we do. #UoM200

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,574
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-alabama.jpeg
The University of Alabama
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/university-of-manchester.jpeg
The University of Manchester
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
The University of Alabama
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
The University of Manchester
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Alabama in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The University of Manchester in 2025.

Incident History — The University of Alabama (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Alabama cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — The University of Manchester (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The University of Manchester cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-alabama.jpeg
The University of Alabama
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2009
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Login
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-manchester.jpeg
The University of Manchester
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

The University of Alabama company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to The University of Manchester company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

The University of Manchester company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to The University of Alabama company.

In the current year, The University of Manchester company and The University of Alabama company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither The University of Manchester company nor The University of Alabama company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither The University of Manchester company nor The University of Alabama company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither The University of Manchester company nor The University of Alabama company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The University of Alabama company nor The University of Manchester company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

The University of Manchester company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to The University of Alabama company.

The University of Manchester company employs more people globally than The University of Alabama company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor The University of Manchester 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