Comparison Overview

University of Michigan

VS

Georgia Institute of Technology

University of Michigan

1109 Geddes Ave, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

The mission of the University of Michigan is to serve the people of Michigan and the world through preeminence in creating, communicating, preserving, and applying knowledge, art, and academic values, and in developing leaders and citizens who will challenge the present and enrich the future. Why Work at Michigan? Being part of something greater, of serving a larger mission of discovery and care — that's the heart of what drives people to work at Michigan. In some way, great or small, every person here helps to advance this world-class institution. It's adding a purpose to your profession. Work at Michigan and become a victor for the greater good.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 37,146
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Georgia Institute of Technology

225 North Ave, Atlanta, Georgia , 30332-0530, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the nation's premier research universities providing a focused, technologically based education to more than 25,000 undergraduate and graduate students . Ranked seventh among U.S. News & World Report's top public universities, Georgia Tech offers degrees through the Colleges of Business, Computing, Design, Engineering, Liberal Arts and Sciences. The Institute offers research opportunities to both undergraduate and graduate students and is home to more than 100 centers that consistently contribute vital innovation to American government, industry, and business.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,134
Subsidiaries: 1
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-michigan.jpeg
University of Michigan
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/georgia-institute-of-technology.jpeg
Georgia Institute 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 Michigan
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Georgia Institute of Technology
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 Michigan in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Georgia Institute of Technology in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — Georgia Institute of Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Georgia Institute 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-michigan.jpeg
University of Michigan
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Hacking, Encryption Cracking, Unauthorized Access
Motivation: Unauthorized access to personal information
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-institute-of-technology.jpeg
Georgia Institute of Technology
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

University of Michigan company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Georgia Institute of Technology company has not reported any.

In the current year, Georgia Institute of Technology company and University of Michigan company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Georgia Institute of Technology company nor University of Michigan company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Michigan company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Georgia Institute of Technology company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University of Michigan company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Georgia Institute of Technology company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Michigan company nor Georgia Institute of Technology company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Michigan company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Georgia Institute of Technology company.

University of Michigan company employs more people globally than Georgia Institute of Technology company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Georgia Institute of Technology holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H