Comparison Overview

University of Cambridge

VS

Delft University of Technology

University of Cambridge

The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, England, GB, CB2 1TN
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

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

Delft University of Technology

Mekelweg 5, Delft, Delft, NL, 2628CC
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) is a leading technical university in the Netherlands, known for our world-class engineering, science and design education. We offer top-ranked education and PhD programmes, and we conduct cutting-edge research that addresses global challenges. TU Delft plays a key role in innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the development of future-proof, knowledge-driven solutions. As the largest and most complete university for engineering sciences in the Netherlands, TU Delft educates nearly half of all Dutch science and engineering students. Almost one hundred percent of our graduates secure employment within one year. Our goal is to remain a global leader in technical education and to continue to contribute to a knowledge-driven, future-proof economy.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 10,086
Subsidiaries: 11
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/tudelft.jpeg
Delft University of Technology
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
Delft University of Technology
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 Delft University of Technology 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 — Delft University of Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Delft University of Technology 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/tudelft.jpeg
Delft University of Technology
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

University of Cambridge company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Delft University of Technology company has not reported any.

In the current year, Delft University of Technology company and University of Cambridge company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Delft University of Technology 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 Delft University of Technology company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Delft University of Technology company nor University of Cambridge company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Cambridge company nor Delft University of Technology company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Delft University of Technology company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Cambridge company.

University of Cambridge company employs more people globally than Delft University of Technology company, reflecting its scale as a Research Services.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Delft University of Technology 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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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