Comparison Overview

Washington University in St. Louis

VS

University of Utah

Washington University in St. Louis

One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, mo, 63130-4899, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Washington University in St. Louis, a medium-sized, independent university, is dedicated to challenging its faculty and students alike to seek new knowledge and greater understanding of an ever-changing, multicultural world. The university has played an integral role in the history and continuing growth of St. Louis and benefits in turn from the wide array of social, cultural and recreational opportunities offered by the metropolitan area to its more than 2.8 million residents. The mission of Washington University in St. Louis is the promotion of learning — learning by students and by faculty. Teaching, the transmission of knowledge, is central to our mission, as is research, the creation of new knowledge.

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 17,266
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

University of Utah

201 Presidents Circle, ROOM 203, Salt Lake City, ut, 84112-9008, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

The University of Utah, located in Salt Lake City in the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains, is the flagship institution of higher learning in Utah. Founded in 1850, it serves over 31,000 students from across the U.S. and the world. With over 72 major subjects at the undergraduate level and more than 90 major fields of study at the graduate level, including law and medicine, the university prepares students to live and compete in the global workplace. Known for its proximity to seven world-class ski resorts within 40 minutes of campus, the U encourages an active, holistic lifestyle, innovation and collaborative thinking to engage students, faculty and business leaders. The University of Utah became a member of the PAC-12 conference in July 2011. Technology and Commercialization The University of Utah is tops in the country for creating start-up companies from university research, according to a ranking by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). See http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/u-of-utah-no-1-for-startups for more information. Forbes magazine’s recent ranking of the “Best States for Business” pointed to “an educated labor force” as a big reason Utah came in at number one. The U supplies many of the employees for companies that keep expanding their operations in Utah, such as Goldman Sachs, Adobe, Omniture, Oracle, Ebay and many others. http://pac12info.utah.edu/commercialization-of-innovation/ Healthcare University of Utah Health Care recently ranked first in the nation in a prestigious national study. The University Health System Consortium’s 2010 Quality and Accountability Study compared 98 of the nation’s top academic medical centers and ranked them based on core quality measures, patient safety indicators, mortality rates, re-admission rates, and patient satisfaction scores. See more about University of Utah Health Care at http://healthcare.utah.edu/index.php

NAICS: 6113
NAICS Definition: Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
Employees: 11,323
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-university-in-st-louis.jpeg
Washington University in St. Louis
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/university-of-utah.jpeg
University of Utah
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 University in St. Louis
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
University of Utah
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Washington University in St. Louis in 2025.

Incidents vs Higher Education Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for University of Utah in 2025.

Incident History — Washington University in St. Louis (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Washington University in St. Louis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — University of Utah (X = Date, Y = Severity)

University of Utah cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/washington-university-in-st-louis.jpeg
Washington University in St. Louis
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/university-of-utah.jpeg
University of Utah
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Washington University in St. Louis company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to University of Utah company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

University of Utah company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Washington University in St. Louis company has not reported any.

In the current year, University of Utah company and Washington University in St. Louis company have not reported any cyber incidents.

University of Utah company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Washington University in St. Louis company has not reported such incidents publicly.

University of Utah company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Washington University in St. Louis company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither University of Utah company nor Washington University in St. Louis company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis company nor University of Utah company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Washington University in St. Louis company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to University of Utah company.

Washington University in St. Louis company employs more people globally than University of Utah company, reflecting its scale as a Higher Education.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Washington University in St. Louis nor University of Utah 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