Comparison Overview

Washington State University

VS

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Washington State University

Pullman/Spokane/Tri-Cities/Vancouver/Everett/Global, Pullman/Spokane/Tri-Cities/Vancouver/Everett/Global, Washington, 99164, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Washington State University is a nationally recognized land-grant research university, founded in Pullman in 1890. WSU’s statewide system includes campuses in Pullman, Spokane, Everett, Tri-Cities and Vancouver, with extension and research offices in every county of the state, and a nationally ranked online program. WSU is well known for its programs in veterinary medicine, agriculture, engineering, architecture, global animal health, food science, plant science, business, human health, pharmacy, neuroscience, communications, biofuels, sleep, business, education, energy. And, WSU athletics teams compete in the NCAA’s Pac-12 Conference.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,227
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Administration Bldg Suite 1070, BIRMINGHAM, AL, US, 35294-0110
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Known for its innovative and interdisciplinary approach to education at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a part of the University of Alabama System, is an internationally renowned research university and academic medical center with over $700 million in research awards annually, as well as Alabama’s largest single employer, with some 26,000 employees, and has an annual economic impact exceeding $7.15 billion on the state. The pillars of UAB’s mission include education, research, innovation and economic development, community engagement, and patient care. Learn more at www.uab.edu.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 16,187
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-state-university.jpeg
Washington State University
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/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
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
Washington State University
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Alabama at Birmingham
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Washington State University in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Alabama at Birmingham in 2025.

Incident History — Washington State University (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington State University cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Alabama at Birmingham (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Alabama at Birmingham cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-state-university.jpeg
Washington State University
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/uab.jpeg
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Washington State University company and University of Alabama at Birmingham company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, University of Alabama at Birmingham company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Washington State University company.

In the current year, University of Alabama at Birmingham company and Washington State University company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor Washington State University company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor Washington State University company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither University of Alabama at Birmingham company nor Washington State University company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington State University company nor University of Alabama at Birmingham company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

University of Alabama at Birmingham company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Washington State University company.

University of Alabama at Birmingham company employs more people globally than Washington State University company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington State University nor University of Alabama at Birmingham 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