Comparison Overview

University of Pittsburgh

VS

University of Alabama at Birmingham

University of Pittsburgh

4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, US, 15260
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The University of Pittsburgh is a top-ranked, public institution in Pennsylvania and a member of the Association of American Universities of leading research universities. With our discoveries, we are recognized as one of the most innovative universities in the world. We invent the paths of the future and forge ahead. Pitt is a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU), which comprises 62 preeminent doctorate-granting research institutions in North America.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 19,281
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Administration Bldg Suite 1070, BIRMINGHAM, AL, US, 35294-0110
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Known for its innovative and interdisciplinary approach to education at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a part of the University of Alabama System, is an internationally renowned research university and academic medical center with over $700 million in research awards annually, as well as Alabama’s largest single employer, with some 26,000 employees, and has an annual economic impact exceeding $7.15 billion on the state. The pillars of UAB’s mission include education, research, innovation and economic development, community engagement, and patient care. Learn more at www.uab.edu.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 16,187
Subsidiaries: 10
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-pittsburgh.jpeg
University of Pittsburgh
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/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
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 Pittsburgh
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Alabama at Birmingham
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 Pittsburgh in 2026.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Alabama at Birmingham in 2026.

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

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

Incident History — University of Alabama at Birmingham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Alabama at Birmingham 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-pittsburgh.jpeg
University of Pittsburgh
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Email
Motivation: Accidental
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

University of Alabama at Birmingham company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Pittsburgh company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Pittsburgh company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas University of Alabama at Birmingham company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Alabama at Birmingham company and University of Pittsburgh company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor University of Pittsburgh company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor University of Pittsburgh company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor University of Pittsburgh company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Pittsburgh company nor University of Alabama at Birmingham company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Alabama at Birmingham company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Pittsburgh company.

University of Pittsburgh company employs more people globally than University of Alabama at Birmingham company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Pittsburgh nor University of Alabama at Birmingham 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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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
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.