Comparison Overview

University of California

VS

University of Birmingham

University of California

1111 Franklin St, Oakland, California, 94607, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17

No other university does as much for so many as the University of California. For almost 150 years, the University of California has educated the brightest minds and helped California become a beacon of innovation. Our campuses routinely are ranked among the best in the world. But our reach extends beyond campus borders. Our people connect the dots, exchange ideas, make advancements and unlock the secrets and mysteries of the universe every day. They engage local governments and underserved schools, save lives and improve health, protect the environment and push the boundaries of space. And it adds up to an immense direct impact on the economy. UC supports 430,000 jobs and contributes over $46 billion to the California economy each year.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 154,345
Subsidiaries: 59
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
3

University of Birmingham

University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, B15 2TT, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-17
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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-california.jpeg
University of California
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-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
Compliance Summary
University of California
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Birmingham
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 California in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Birmingham in 2025.

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

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

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

University of Birmingham 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-california.jpeg
University of California
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-birmingham.jpeg
University of Birmingham
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

University of California company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to University of Birmingham company.

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

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

Both University of Birmingham company and University of California company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

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

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither University of California nor University of Birmingham 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