Comparison Overview

Arizona Association of Counties

VS

CropLife Australia

Arizona Association of Counties

1910 W. Jefferson, Phoenix, AZ, 85009, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

The Arizona Association of Counties (AACo) is the only state organization that represents all county officials and the governments they serve in the State of Arizona. Founded in 1968, AACo provides essential services to the state's counties. AACo advances issues with the state and federal government, improves the public understanding of county government, assists counties in finding and sharing innovative solutions through education and research and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers money.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

CropLife Australia

40 Macquarie St, Canberra, 2600, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

CropLife Australia (CropLife) is the peak industry organisation representing the agricultural chemical and biotechnology (plant science) sector in Australia. CropLife represents the innovators, developers, manufacturers, formulators and registrants of crop protection and agro-biotechnology products. CropLife Australia advocates science based legislative frameworks that are consistent in approach and application across the industry. CropLife promotes competitiveness through innovation, the protection of intellectual property and the introduction of new technologies and practices. Our members develop and register products to protect crops against pests, weeds and diseases, and develop crop biotechnologies that are key to the nation’s agricultural productivity and sustainability as well as global food security.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 13
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arizona-association-of-counties.jpeg
Arizona Association of Counties
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/croplife-australia.jpeg
CropLife Australia
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
Arizona Association of Counties
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CropLife Australia
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arizona Association of Counties in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CropLife Australia in 2025.

Incident History — Arizona Association of Counties (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arizona Association of Counties cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CropLife Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CropLife Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arizona-association-of-counties.jpeg
Arizona Association of Counties
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/croplife-australia.jpeg
CropLife Australia
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Arizona Association of Counties company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CropLife Australia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, CropLife Australia company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Arizona Association of Counties company.

In the current year, CropLife Australia company and Arizona Association of Counties company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CropLife Australia company nor Arizona Association of Counties company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CropLife Australia company nor Arizona Association of Counties company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither CropLife Australia company nor Arizona Association of Counties company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties company nor CropLife Australia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties company nor CropLife Australia company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

CropLife Australia company employs more people globally than Arizona Association of Counties company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Arizona Association of Counties nor CropLife Australia 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