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 South CarolinaUniversity of South Carolina
VS
UC IrvineUC Irvine
University of South Carolina

University of South Carolina

Columbia, SC, US, 29208

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://sc.edu
799/1000Fair

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, facul...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:13,232
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UC Irvine

UC Irvine

501 Aldrich Hall, Irvine, CA, US, 92697

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://uci.edu
801/1000Good

Since 1965, the University of California, Irvine has combined the strengths of a major research university with the bounty of an incomparable Southern California location. As a U.S. News & World Report top 10 public university, UCI’s unyielding commitment to rigorous ac...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:14,113
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
University of South Carolina

University of South Carolina

-
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
UC Irvine

UC Irvine

-
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 University of South Carolina in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UC Irvine in 2026.

Incidents

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

University of South Carolina 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 - UC Irvine (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UC Irvine 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 South Carolina

University of South Carolina

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UC Irvine

UC Irvine

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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