Comparison Overview

University of Cambridge

VS

Utrecht University

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

Utrecht University

Heidelberglaan 6, Utrecht, Utrecht, utrecht, NL, 3512
Last Update: 2025-12-02
Between 700 and 749

At Utrecht University (UU), we are working towards a better world. We do this by researching complex issues beyond the borders of disciplines. We put thinkers in contact with doers, so new insights can be applied. We give students the space to develop themselves. In so doing, we make substantial contributions to society, both now and in the future.

NAICS: 5417
NAICS Definition: Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees: 11,279
Subsidiaries: 7
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-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/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht University
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
Utrecht University
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 Utrecht University 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 — Utrecht University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Utrecht University 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/universiteit-utrecht.jpeg
Utrecht University
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

University of Cambridge and Utrecht University have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Utrecht University company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Cambridge company.

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

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

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Cambridge nor Utrecht University 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