Comparison Overview

University of Sydney

VS

University of Oklahoma

University of Sydney

Camperdown/Darlington, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

As the first university to be established in Australasia, the University of Sydney consistently ranks as one of Australia’s top universities. We aim to create and sustain a university that will, for the benefit of both Australia and the wider world, maximise the potential of the brightest researchers and most promising students, whatever their social or cultural background. Web: sydney.edu.au Explore Sydney through the eyes of a student in 360° on our Virtual Tour: sydney.edu.au/tour Twitter: twitter.com/Sydney_Uni Facebook: facebook.com/sydneyuni Instagram: @sydney_uni YouTube: youtube.com/uniofsydney CRICOS: 00026A TEQSA: PRV12057

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 18,522
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Oklahoma

660 N Parrington Oval, Norman, Oklahoma, US, 73019
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Attracting top students from across the nation and more than 100 countries around the world, OU provides a major university experience in a private college atmosphere. In fact, OU is number one in the nation in the number of National Merit Scholars enrolled at a public university, and is in the top five of public universities in the nation in the graduation of Rhodes Scholars. OU has emerged as a pacesetter for public higher education in the United States and is ranked by The Princeton Review among the top 10 public universities in the nation in terms of academic excellence and cost for students. Specialties Architecture, Arts & Sciences, Atmospheric & Geographic Sciences, Business, Engineering, Fine Arts, International Studies, Journalism, Law

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,309
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-sydney.jpeg
University of Sydney
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-oklahoma.jpeg
University of Oklahoma
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 Sydney
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Oklahoma
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 Sydney in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Oklahoma in 2025.

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

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

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

University of Oklahoma 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-sydney.jpeg
University of Sydney
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-oklahoma.jpeg
University of Oklahoma
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2002
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Lax privacy settings in a campus file-sharing network
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither University of Oklahoma company nor University of Sydney company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

University of Oklahoma company has disclosed at least one data breach, while University of Sydney company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Oklahoma company nor University of Sydney company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither University of Sydney company nor University of Oklahoma company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Sydney company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Oklahoma company.

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

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma holds HIPAA certification.

Neither University of Sydney nor University of Oklahoma 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