Comparison Overview

University of Birmingham

VS

University of Maryland

University of Birmingham

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, B15 2TT, GB
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for the University of Birmingham . We have been challenging and developing great minds for more than a century. Characterised by a tradition of innovation, research at the University has broken new ground, pushed forward the boundaries of knowledge and made an impact on people’s lives. View our comment moderation policy here: https://linktr.ee/unibirmingham

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 13,839
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

University of Maryland

University of Maryland, College Park, MD, US, 20742
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

As the State's flagship, the University of Maryland (UMD) strives to bring students deeply into the process of discovery, innovation and entrepreneurship. Whenever possible, hands-on research complements classroom instruction. Interdisciplinary collaborations facilitate the understanding of complex problems like cybersecurity and climate change, and international study and diversity help our graduates become global citizens. Its location inside Washington, D.C.'s Beltway, along with its own Metro stop, gives students numerous opportunities to work with neighboring federal agencies and labs, think tanks and foreign organizations.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 21,312
Subsidiaries: 0
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-birmingham.jpeg
University of Birmingham
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-maryland.jpeg
University of Maryland
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 Birmingham
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Maryland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Birmingham in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Maryland in 2026.

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

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

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

University of Maryland 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-birmingham.jpeg
University of Birmingham
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-maryland.jpeg
University of Maryland
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

University of Birmingham and University of Maryland have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, University of Maryland company and University of Birmingham company have not reported any cyber incidents.

University of Maryland company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while University of Birmingham company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University of Birmingham company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other University of Maryland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Maryland company nor University of Birmingham company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Birmingham company nor University of Maryland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Birmingham company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Maryland company.

University of Maryland company employs more people globally than University of Birmingham company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Birmingham nor University of Maryland holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.