Comparison Overview

University of Cambridge

VS

Chinese Academy of Sciences

University of Cambridge

The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, England, GB, CB2 1TN
Last Update: 2025-12-01
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.cam.ac.uk/

The University of Cambridge is one of the world's foremost research universities. The University is made up of 31 Colleges and over 150 departments, faculties, schools and other institutions. Its mission is 'to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence'​.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 18,876
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Chinese Academy of Sciences

52 Sanlihe Rd., Beijing, CN, 100864
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799
http://english.cas.cn/

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is the lead national scientific institution in natural sciences and high technology development in China and the country's supreme scientific advisory body. It incorporates three major parts: a comprehensive research and development network consisting of 104 research institutes, a traditional merit-based national academy as represented by its Academic Divisions and a system of higher education based on its affiliated 3 universities and the support of its research institutes. CAS has served as the major national strategic research force since founding in November 1949 and has left its deep footprints in Chinese S&T and the overall development of China's national innovation system.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 14,820
Subsidiaries: 16
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-cambridge.jpeg
University of Cambridge
—
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/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
—
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 Cambridge
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Chinese Academy of Sciences
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 Cambridge in 2025.

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2025.

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

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

Incident History — Chinese Academy of Sciences (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chinese Academy of Sciences 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-cambridge.jpeg
University of Cambridge
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing, Spoofed Websites
Motivation: Financial Gain, Espionage
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-academy-of-sciences.jpeg
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Cambridge company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Cambridge company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Chinese Academy of Sciences company has not reported any.

In the current year, Chinese Academy of Sciences company and University of Cambridge company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences company nor University of Cambridge company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Cambridge company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Chinese Academy of Sciences company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Chinese Academy of Sciences company nor University of Cambridge company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Cambridge company nor Chinese Academy of Sciences company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Chinese Academy of Sciences company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Cambridge company.

University of Cambridge company employs more people globally than Chinese Academy of Sciences company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Chinese Academy of Sciences holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MCP Server Kubernetes is an MCP Server that can connect to a Kubernetes cluster and manage it. Prior to 2.9.8, there is a security issue exists in the exec_in_pod tool of the mcp-server-kubernetes MCP Server. The tool accepts user-provided commands in both array and string formats. When a string format is provided, it is passed directly to shell interpretation (sh -c) without input validation, allowing shell metacharacters to be interpreted. This vulnerability can be exploited through direct command injection or indirect prompt injection attacks, where AI agents may execute commands without explicit user intent. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.9.8.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

XML external entity (XXE) injection in eyoucms v1.7.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted body of a POST request.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
References
Description

An issue was discovered in Fanvil x210 V2 2.12.20 allowing unauthenticated attackers on the local network to access administrative functions of the device (e.g. file upload, firmware update, reboot...) via a crafted authentication bypass.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
References
Description

Cal.com is open-source scheduling software. Prior to 5.9.8, A flaw in the login credentials provider allows an attacker to bypass password verification when a TOTP code is provided, potentially gaining unauthorized access to user accounts. This issue exists due to problematic conditional logic in the authentication flow. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.9.8.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/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
References
Description

Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely in Java. Prior to 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1, when an application passed an attacker controlled float poing number into the toFixed() function, it might lead to high CPU consumption and a potential Denial of Service. Small numbers go through this call stack: NativeNumber.numTo > DToA.JS_dtostr > DToA.JS_dtoa > DToA.pow5mult where pow5mult attempts to raise 5 to a ridiculous power. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1.

Published
Date
2025-12-03
Updated
Date
2025-12-03
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
References