Bannock County
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749
Bannock County, State of Idaho.
NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 233
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Comparison Overview
Bannock County
VS
City of Framingham
City of Framingham
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799
OVERVIEW Framingham was incorporated as a town on June 25, 1700. Chapter 143 of the Acts of 1949 established the Town of Framingham Representative Town Government by Limited Town Meetings. The Citizens of Framingham adopted the Home Rule Charter for the City of Framingham at an election held on April 5, 2017. The benefits of local government outlined in the Home Rule Charter affirm the values of representative democracy, strong leadership, and citizen participation. On November 7, 2017 the citizens of Framingham elected the first Mayor, City Council and School Committee, who were sworn into office on January 1, 2018. EXECUTIVE & LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES The executive and administrative powers of the municipality are solely vested in the Mayor, and may be exercised by the Mayor either personally or through several municipal agencies under the general supervision and control of the Mayor. The Mayor shall enforce the charter, the laws, the ordinances and other orders of the municipality and record all official acts of the executive branch of City government. The Mayor shall exercise general supervision and direction over all municipal agencies, unless otherwise provided by law, by the charter or by ordinance. City Council is the sole legislative body of the City, and is therefore responsible for passing all City ordinances. The City Council is made up of eleven (11) members which shall exercise the legislative powers of Framingham. Two (2) of these members are known as councilors-at-large and nine (9) members are known as district councilors.
NAICS: 922
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Compliance Badges Comparison
Security & Compliance Standards Overview
Bannock County
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 Framingham
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
Bannock County
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
City of Framingham
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Bannock County in 2025.
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for City of Framingham in 2025.
Incident History — Bannock County (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Bannock County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Incident History — City of Framingham (X = Date, Y = Severity)
City of Framingham cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Notable Incidents
Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company
Bannock County
Incidents
City of Framingham
Incidents
No Incident
FAQ
City of Framingham company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Bannock County company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
Bannock County company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas City of Framingham company has not reported any.
In the current year, City of Framingham company and Bannock County company have not reported any cyber incidents.
Neither City of Framingham company nor Bannock County company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.
Bannock County company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other City of Framingham company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Neither City of Framingham company nor Bannock County company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.
Neither Bannock County company nor City of Framingham company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
Neither Bannock County company nor City of Framingham company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.
City of Framingham company employs more people globally than Bannock County company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Bannock County nor City of Framingham holds GDPR certification.
Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)
Description
ImageMagick is free and open-source software used for editing and manipulating digital images. Prior to 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34, there is a vulnerability in ImageMagick’s Magick++ layer that manifests when Options::fontFamily is invoked with an empty string. Clearing a font family calls RelinquishMagickMemory on _drawInfo->font, freeing the font string but leaving _drawInfo->font pointing to freed memory while _drawInfo->family is set to that (now-invalid) pointer. Any later cleanup or reuse of _drawInfo->font re-frees or dereferences dangling memory. DestroyDrawInfo and other setters (Options::font, Image::font) assume _drawInfo->font remains valid, so destruction or subsequent updates trigger crashes or heap corruption. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.2-9 and 6.9.13-34.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Description
FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 has a Remote Code Execution via Unrestricted File Upload in Ad Management. FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 allows authenticated remote attackers to upload files that the server later executes (or stores in an executable location) without sufficient validation, sanitization, or execution restrictions. An authenticated remote attacker can upload a crafted PHP file and cause the application or web server to execute it, resulting in remote code execution (RCE).
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description
PHPGurukul Billing System 1.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the admin/index.php endpoint. Specifically, the username parameter accepts unvalidated user input, which is then concatenated directly into a backend SQL query.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description
NMIS/BioDose software V22.02 and previous versions contain executable binaries with plain text hard-coded passwords. These hard-coded passwords could allow unauthorized access to both the application and database.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
cvss4
Base: 8.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
NMIS/BioDose V22.02 and previous versions' installation directory paths by default have insecure file permissions, which in certain deployment scenarios can enable users on client workstations to modify the program executables and libraries.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/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
