Comparison Overview

University of Johannesburg

VS

University of Cincinnati

University of Johannesburg

Kingsway and University Rds, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, Gauteng, 2006, ZA
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

It is the vision of the University of Johannesburg to be a premier, embracing, African city university offering a mix of vocational and academic programmes that advances freedom, democracy, equality and human dignity as high ideals of humanity through distinguished scholarship, excellence in teaching, reputable research and innovation, and through putting intellectual capital to work.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,877
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Cincinnati

2624 Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45221-0063, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 800 and 849

The University of Cincinnati, top 5 university for co-op, offers students a balance of educational excellence and real-world experience. Since its founding in 1819, UC has been the source of many discoveries creating positive change for society, including the first antihistamine, the first co-op education program, the first electronic organ, the Golden Gate Bridge designer and the oral polio vaccine. Each year, this urban, public, research university graduates nearly 10,000 students, adding to more than 300,000 living alumni around the world. UC is the largest employer in the Cincinnati region, with an economic impact of more than $4.2 billion.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 15,281
Subsidiaries: 5
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-johannesburg.jpeg
University of Johannesburg
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-cincinnati.jpeg
University of Cincinnati
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 Johannesburg
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Cincinnati
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 Johannesburg in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Cincinnati in 2025.

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

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

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

University of Cincinnati 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-johannesburg.jpeg
University of Johannesburg
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-cincinnati.jpeg
University of Cincinnati
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, University of Cincinnati company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to University of Johannesburg company.

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

Neither University of Cincinnati company nor University of Johannesburg company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Cincinnati company nor University of Johannesburg company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Cincinnati company nor University of Johannesburg company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Johannesburg company nor University of Cincinnati company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Cincinnati company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Johannesburg company.

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

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Johannesburg nor University of Cincinnati holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H