Comparison Overview

University of Pennsylvania

VS

University of Florida

University of Pennsylvania

3451 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, US, 19104-6303
Last Update: 2026-01-19
View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.upenn.edu/

The University of Pennsylvania is one of the oldest universities in America and, as a member of the Ivy League, one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in all the world. Penn is home to 12 schools including the School of Arts and Sciences, the School of Nursing, the School of Engineering and Applied Science and the Wharton School of Business, as well as several graduate and professional schools such as the Perelman School of Medicine.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 22,413
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
View Profile

University of Florida

355 Tigert Hall, Gainesville, Florida, US, 32611-3115
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 800 and 849
http://UF.edu

University of Florida is a major, public, comprehensive, land-grant, research university. The state's oldest, largest and most comprehensive university, it is among the nation's most academically diverse public universities. University of Florida has a long history of established programs in international education, research and service. It was founded in 1853 and is based in Gainesville, Florida.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 30,956
Subsidiaries: 4
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-pennsylvania.jpeg
University of Pennsylvania
—
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/uflorida.jpeg
University of Florida
—
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 Pennsylvania
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Florida
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 Pennsylvania in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Florida in 2026.

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

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

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

University of Florida 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-pennsylvania.jpeg
University of Pennsylvania
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Vulnerability in Oracle E-Business Suite, Voice Phishing (for broader Ivy League attacks)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uflorida.jpeg
University of Florida
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

University of Pennsylvania company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Florida company has not reported any.

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

Neither University of Florida company nor University of Pennsylvania company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

Neither University of Florida company nor University of Pennsylvania company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Pennsylvania company nor University of Florida company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Pennsylvania company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Florida company.

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

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Pennsylvania nor University of Florida holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
References
Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References