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

Comparison Overview

Engineering at the University of AucklandEngineering at the University of Auckland
VS
Harvard UniversityHarvard University
Engineering at the University of Auckland

Engineering at the University of Auckland

20 Symonds St, Auckland, undefined, undefined, NZ

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

Engineers contribute to the health of our nations, the growth of our economy and the future of our cities. At the Faculty of Engineering we are dedicated to improving society through problem-solving, innovating and improving the systems in our technologically-driven wor...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Harvard University

Harvard University

30 Dunster St, Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, 02138

Last Update: 24/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://harvard.edu
380/1000Critical

Harvard University is devoted to excellence in teaching, learning, and research, and to developing leaders in many disciplines who make a difference globally. Founded in 1636, Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. The official flags...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:35,447
Subsidiaries:57
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Engineering at the University of Auckland

Engineering at the University of Auckland

-
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
Harvard University

Harvard 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)

No incidents recorded for Engineering at the University of Auckland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

Harvard University has 692.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Engineering at the University of Auckland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Engineering at the University of Auckland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Harvard 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...
Engineering at the University of Auckland

Engineering at the University of Auckland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Harvard University

Harvard University

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
INS1779266405
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNISTAINSHAR1778200829
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STAVICINSHAR1778218101

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84411
SUMMARY

The web management service in affected RouterOS versions contains an integer underflow in its HTTP request body handling that is reachable before authentication. This can be leveraged by an unauthenticated network attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution as root, or to cause a denial of service, using a single crafted request.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105051
SUMMARY

Denuvo Anti-Tamper through 2026-03-04 allows bypass of a hypervisor presence check via CPUID interception (SimpleSvm.sys on AMD; hyperkd.sys and hyperhv.dll on Intel).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 1.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
0.5
CVE-2026-105050
SUMMARY

PeaZip before 11.3.0, in a non-default configuration, is vulnerable to OS command injection via a filename in an archive because "quotation character already used in the string" is mishandled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-105049
SUMMARY

Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 has a Playground feature that does not require authentication for proxying arbitrary HTTP and HTTPS requests to URLs on the public internet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105048
SUMMARY

The Playground feature of Zilliz Attu before 3.0.0 allows SSRF (proxying of requests to private IP addresses).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-02
UPDATED
Date2026-10-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2