Comparison Overview

University of South Carolina

VS

University of Houston

University of South Carolina

undefined, Columbia, SC, 29208, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://sc.edu

With thriving academic and research excellence and a lively, welcoming student experience, the University of South Carolina brings the opportunities of higher education to new generations. South Carolina's unrivaled college experience has been sought by students, faculty and academic researchers for more than 200 years. Founded in 1801, the university is located in Columbia, the capital of South Carolina. The University of South Carolina System, led by President Michael Amiridis who is serving as the university's 30th president, and has eight campuses in 20 locations that together serve more than 54,000 students.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 12,423
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

University of Houston

4300 Martin Luther King Blvd, Houston, TX, 77204, US
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849
http://uh.edu

Founded in 1927, the University of Houston is the leading public research university in the vibrant international city of Houston. Each year, we educate more than 47,000 students in more than 250 undergraduate and graduate academic programs, on campus and online. UH awards over 10,000 degrees annually, with more than 332,000 alumni.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,963
Subsidiaries: 11
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-south-carolina.jpeg
University of South Carolina
—
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-houston.jpeg
University of Houston
—
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 South Carolina
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Houston
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 South Carolina in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Houston in 2025.

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

University of South Carolina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

University of Houston 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-south-carolina.jpeg
University of South Carolina
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-houston.jpeg
University of Houston
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Historically, University of Houston company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to University of South Carolina company.

In the current year, University of Houston company and University of South Carolina company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Houston company nor University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Houston company nor University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Houston company nor University of South Carolina company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of South Carolina company nor University of Houston company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Houston company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of South Carolina company.

University of South Carolina company employs more people globally than University of Houston company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of South Carolina nor University of Houston 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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
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.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References