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

Comparison Overview

UTS AlumniUTS Alumni
VS
University of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
UTS Alumni

UTS Alumni

15 Broadway, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, AU

Last Update: 05/01/2026

View Profile

UTS is a vibrant and innovative university with over 230,000 alumni spread across the globe. All graduates from UTS or from one of its antecedent institutions automatically become a valued member of the UTS alumni community and network. Join this group to connect and ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo

200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://uwaterloo.ca/
800/1000Good

University of Waterloo is a leader in innovation that drives economic and social prosperity for Canada and the world. We are home to a renowned talent pipeline, game-changing research and technology, and unmatched entrepreneurial culture, that together create solutions ...

NAICS:6113
NAICS Definition:Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees:11,462
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UTS Alumni

UTS Alumni

-
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
University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo

-
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 UTS Alumni in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Waterloo in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UTS Alumni (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UTS Alumni 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 - University of Waterloo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
UTS Alumni

UTS Alumni

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8