Ashtabula County, Ohio
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 750 and 799
County Government
NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 229
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Comparison Overview
Ashtabula County, Ohio
VS
City of Philadelphia
City of Philadelphia
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 650 and 699
With a workforce of 30,000 people, and opportunities in 1,000 different job categories, the City of Philadelphia is one of the largest employers in Southeastern Pennsylvania. As an employer, we operate through the guiding principles of service, integrity, respect, accountability, collaboration, diversity and inclusion. We strive to effectively deliver services, to resolve the challenges facing our city, and to make Philadelphia a place where all of our residents have the opportunity to reach their potential. To learn more about job opportunities, visit www.phila.gov or follow #PHLCityJobs.
NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 11,708
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Compliance Badges Comparison
Security & Compliance Standards Overview
Ashtabula County, Ohio
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
City of Philadelphia
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ashtabula County, Ohio
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
City of Philadelphia
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Ashtabula County, Ohio in 2026.
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for City of Philadelphia in 2026.
Incident History — Ashtabula County, Ohio (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Ashtabula County, Ohio cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Incident History — City of Philadelphia (X = Date, Y = Severity)
City of Philadelphia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Notable Incidents
Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company
Ashtabula County, Ohio
Incidents
FAQ
Ashtabula County, Ohio company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to City of Philadelphia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
City of Philadelphia company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ashtabula County, Ohio company.
In the current year, City of Philadelphia company and Ashtabula County, Ohio company have not reported any cyber incidents.
Neither City of Philadelphia company nor Ashtabula County, Ohio company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.
Both City of Philadelphia company and Ashtabula County, Ohio company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.
Neither City of Philadelphia company nor Ashtabula County, Ohio company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio company nor City of Philadelphia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
City of Philadelphia company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ashtabula County, Ohio company.
City of Philadelphia company employs more people globally than Ashtabula County, Ohio company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Ashtabula County, Ohio nor City of Philadelphia holds GDPR certification.
Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)
Description
Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description
Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description
Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description
Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
