Comparison Overview

University of Minnesota

VS

University of Louisville

University of Minnesota

East and West Bank and St. Paul campus, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, US
Last Update: 2026-01-24
Between 750 and 799

One of the nation’s largest schools, the University of Minnesota offers baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees in virtually every field—from medicine to business, law to liberal arts, and science and engineering to architecture. The University of Minnesota system is made up of five campuses in Minnesota including Crookston, Duluth, Morris, Rochester, and the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul). University of Minnesota Extension provides outreach and education services to Minnesota's communities through science-based knowledge, expertise and training. The University of Minnesota was recognized by Forbes in 2018 in the Best Employer, Best Employer for Diversity, and Best Employer for New Grads categories.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 27,883
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

University of Louisville

2301 S 3rd St, Louisville, ky, US, 40292-0001
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

The University of Louisville is a state supported research university located in Kentucky's largest metropolitan area. It was a municipally supported public institution for many decades prior to joining the university system in 1970. The University has three campuses. The 287-acre Belknap Campus is three miles from downtown Louisville and houses seven of the university's 11 colleges and schools. The Health Sciences Center is situated in downtown Louisville's medical complex and houses the university's health related programs and the University of Louisville Hospital. The 243-acre Shelby Campus is located in eastern Jefferson County.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 10,362
Subsidiaries: 5
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-minnesota.jpeg
University of Minnesota
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-louisville.jpeg
University of Louisville
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 Minnesota
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Louisville
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 Minnesota in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Louisville in 2026.

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

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

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

University of Louisville 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-minnesota.jpeg
University of Minnesota
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-louisville.jpeg
University of Louisville
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2017
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

University of Minnesota and University of Louisville have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

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

Neither University of Louisville company nor University of Minnesota company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Minnesota company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other University of Louisville company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Louisville company nor University of Minnesota company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Minnesota company nor University of Louisville company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Minnesota company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Louisville company.

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

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Minnesota nor University of Louisville 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