Comparison Overview

University of Michigan

VS

UC San Diego

University of Michigan

1109 Geddes Ave, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
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
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

UC San Diego

9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92093, US
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 800 and 849

Recognized as one of the top 15 research universities worldwide, our culture of collaboration sparks discoveries that advance society and drive economic impact. Everything we do is dedicated to ensuring our students have the opportunity to become changemakers, equipped with the multidisciplinary tools needed to accelerate answers to our world’s most pressing issues.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,749
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
14
Attack type number
3

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/ucsandiego.jpeg
UC San Diego
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
UC San Diego
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

University of Michigan has 38.89% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UC San Diego in 2025.

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

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

Incident History — UC San Diego (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UC San Diego 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/ucsandiego.jpeg
UC San Diego
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

FAQ

UC San Diego company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Michigan company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

UC San Diego company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to University of Michigan company.

In the current year, University of Michigan company has reported more cyber incidents than UC San Diego company.

UC San Diego company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while University of Michigan company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both UC San Diego company and University of Michigan company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

University of Michigan company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while UC San Diego company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Michigan company nor UC San Diego company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Both UC San Diego company and University of Michigan company have a similar number of subsidiaries worldwide.

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

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Michigan nor UC San Diego 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