Comparison Overview

The University of Alabama

VS

University of South Florida

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

University of South Florida

4202 East Fowler Ave, Address 2, Tampa, Florida, US, 33620-9951
Last Update: 2025-12-17
Between 800 and 849

The University of South Florida, a high-impact research university dedicated to student success and committed to community engagement, generates an annual economic impact of more than $6 billion. With campuses in Tampa, St. Petersburg and Sarasota-Manatee, USF serves approximately 50,000 students who represent nearly 150 different countries. U.S. News & World Report has ranked USF as one of the nation’s top 50 public universities for five consecutive years, and this year USF earned its highest ranking ever among all universities public or private. In 2023, USF became the first public university in Florida in nearly 40 years to be invited to join the Association of American Universities, a prestigious group of the leading universities in the United States and Canada. Through hundreds of millions of dollars in research activity each year and as one of the top universities in the world for securing new patents, USF is a leader in solving global problems and improving lives. USF is a member of the American Athletic Conference. Learn more at www.usf.edu.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,715
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/usouthflorida.jpeg
University of South Florida
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
University of South Florida
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 University of South Florida 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 — University of South Florida (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of South Florida 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/usouthflorida.jpeg
University of South Florida
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

The University of Alabama company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of South Florida company has not reported any.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither The University of Alabama nor University of South Florida holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

Neither The University of Alabama nor University of South Florida holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor University of South Florida holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor University of South Florida holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The University of Alabama nor University of South Florida 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