Comparison Overview

University of Connecticut

VS

University of Iowa

University of Connecticut

352 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, US, 06269
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799

The University of Connecticut (UConn), a Wall Street Journal top 10 public university, is home to more than 32,000 students, 1,500 faculty, 255,000 proud alumni, and a handsome husky named Jonathan. The University has fourteen schools and colleges: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Business, Dental Medicine, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Law, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Social Work. Students can choose from eight undergraduate bachelor's degrees with 102 possible majors, as well as seventeen graduate/doctoral degrees and five professional degree programs (MD, JD, etc.). UConn's main campus in Storrs is admitting the highest-achieving freshmen in University history. Student diversity continues to increase, as does the number of honors students, valedictorians and salutatorians who consistently make UConn their top choice. It's a great time to be a Husky!

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 13,623
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Iowa

101 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, Iowa, US, 52242-1316
Last Update: 2026-01-23

On our beautiful campus spanning the Iowa River, our faculty and staff enjoy access to an array of cultural, educational, and recreational activities. With more than 30,000 students, more than 14,000 employees, and a budget of $3 billion, the University of Iowa is one of the nation's top public research universities.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 14,316
Subsidiaries: 12
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-connecticut.jpeg
University of Connecticut
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-iowa.jpeg
University of Iowa
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 Connecticut
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Iowa
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 Connecticut in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Iowa in 2026.

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

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

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

University of Iowa 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-connecticut.jpeg
University of Connecticut
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-iowa.jpeg
University of Iowa
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both University of Connecticut company and University of Iowa company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, University of Iowa company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to University of Connecticut company.

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

Neither University of Iowa company nor University of Connecticut company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Iowa company nor University of Connecticut company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Iowa company nor University of Connecticut company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Connecticut company nor University of Iowa company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Iowa company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Connecticut company.

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

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Connecticut nor University of Iowa 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.