Comparison Overview

University of Michigan

VS

Rutgers University

University of Michigan

1109 Geddes Ave, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://umich.edu/

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
View Profile

Rutgers University

57 US Highway 1, New Brunswick, NJ, US, 08901
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rutgers.edu

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, stands among America’s highest-ranked, most diverse public research universities. The oldest, largest, and top-ranked public university in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, you’ll find us at our main locations in three New Jersey cities, and our footprint can be seen around the region. We’re an academic, health, and research powerhouse and a university of opportunity.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,207
Subsidiaries: 8
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-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/rutgersu.jpeg
Rutgers 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 Michigan
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rutgers University
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 Rutgers University 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 — Rutgers University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rutgers 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-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/rutgersu.jpeg
Rutgers University
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2018
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Rutgers University 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 faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Rutgers University company.

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

Neither Rutgers University 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 Rutgers University company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University of Michigan company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Rutgers University company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Michigan company nor Rutgers University company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Michigan company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Rutgers University company.

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

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor Rutgers University 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.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
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
References
Description

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

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
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
References
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2026-01-22
Updated
Date
2026-01-22
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
References