Comparison Overview

University of Amsterdam

VS

Los Alamos National Laboratory

University of Amsterdam

Spui 21, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NL, 1012 WX
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

The University of Amsterdam is one of the largest comprehensive universities in Europe. With some 44,000 students, 6,000 staff, 3,000 PhD candidates, and an annual budget of more than 850 million euros, it is also one of Amsterdam’s biggest employers. There is an inseparable link between the university and its host city. The freedom and creativity with which Amsterdam has long been associated have worked their way into the fabric of the university. This is a place where individuality, authenticity and diversity are celebrated as sources of stimulation, inspiration and innovation. Professional and personal development, challenges and collaboration are undertaken in a versatile and multidimensional (inter)national ecosystem with leading stakeholders. Staff at the UvA make a meaningful contribution to uncovering solutions to some of the world’s most significant problems and to developing the next generation of talent.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 11,136
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Los Alamos National Laboratory

P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM, US, 87545
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of the world’s most innovative multidisciplinary research institutions. We're engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security to ensure the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Our workforce specializes in a wide range of progressive science, technology and engineering across many exciting fields, including space exploration, geophysics, renewable energy, supercomputing, medicine and nanotechnology.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 13,101
Subsidiaries: 0
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-amsterdam.jpeg
University of Amsterdam
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/los-alamos-national-laboratory.jpeg
Los Alamos National Laboratory
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
University of Amsterdam
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Los Alamos National Laboratory
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Amsterdam in 2026.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2026.

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

University of Amsterdam cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Los Alamos National Laboratory (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Los Alamos National Laboratory 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-amsterdam.jpeg
University of Amsterdam
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/los-alamos-national-laboratory.jpeg
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Amsterdam company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Los Alamos National Laboratory company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Los Alamos National Laboratory company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to University of Amsterdam company.

In the current year, Los Alamos National Laboratory company and University of Amsterdam company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Los Alamos National Laboratory company nor University of Amsterdam company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Los Alamos National Laboratory company nor University of Amsterdam company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Los Alamos National Laboratory company nor University of Amsterdam company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Amsterdam company nor Los Alamos National Laboratory company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Amsterdam company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Los Alamos National Laboratory company.

Los Alamos National Laboratory company employs more people globally than University of Amsterdam company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Amsterdam nor Los Alamos National Laboratory holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N