Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
VS
Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University
University of Washington

University of Washington

1400 NE Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA, US, 98195-4550

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://uw.edu
815/1000Good

Founded in 1861, the University of Washington is one of the oldest state-supported institutions of higher education on the West Coast and is one of the preeminent research universities in the world. Located minutes from downtown Seattle, the main UW campus provides gorg...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:31,670
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

805 Rudder Tower, College Station, TX, US, 77843

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://tamu.edu
758/1000Fair

Texas A&M University has a proud history that stretches back to 1876 when The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas became the first public institution of higher learning in the state of Texas. Nestled in the heart of the Houston-Dallas-Austin triangle, Texas A&M...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:30,253
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of Washington

University of Washington

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

University of Washington has 41.18% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas A&M University in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - University of Washington (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Washington cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Texas A&M University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas A&M University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
University of Washington

University of Washington

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1782750283
Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
XERTEX1781864792

FAQ

Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between University of Washington company and Texas A&M University company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between University of Washington and Texas A&M University, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between University of Washington and Texas A&M University, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - University of Washington or Texas A&M University ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - University of Washington or Texas A&M University ?
Between University of Washington and Texas A&M University, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between University of Washington and Texas A&M University, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1