Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Bannock CountyBannock County
VS
Workingfor.beWorkingfor.be
Bannock County

Bannock County

624 E Center St, Pocatello, 83201, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bannockcounty.us
746/1000Moderate

Bannock County, State of Idaho.

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:237
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Simon Bolivarlaan 30, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.workingfor.be
782/1000Fair

Workingfor.be is the job platform of the federal administration. Here, you will find a wide variety of jobs in different fields of profession. Every day thousands of our employees help build tomorrow's society. When you choose the federal administration, you choos...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,104
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bannock County

Bannock County

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bannock County in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Workingfor.be in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bannock County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bannock County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Workingfor.be (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workingfor.be cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Bannock County

Bannock County

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAN3393622
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Bannock County company and Workingfor.be company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Bannock County and Workingfor.be, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Bannock County and Workingfor.be, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Bannock County or Workingfor.be ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Bannock County or Workingfor.be ?
Between Bannock County and Workingfor.be, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Bannock County and Workingfor.be, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56785
SUMMARY

FlatPress versions prior to commit 10be83c, contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in comment and contact forms where name, URL, and email fields are rendered without proper output encoding in Smarty templates. Attackers can inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript through these fields to execute malicious scripts in browsers of viewers including administrators, or bypass URL scheme validation to inject javascript: or data: URIs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54588
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 use the attacker-controlled `HTTP_HOST` request header as the authoritative source for building callback URLs in its OIDC, SAML, and logout authentication flows without any validation. An unauthenticated attacker can poison the `redirect_uri` sent to the Identity Provider, causing the IdP to redirect the victim's authorization code to an attacker-controlled server - resulting in full account takeover with no credentials required. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-48493
SUMMARY

Snipe-IT is an IT asset/license management system. In versions prior to 8.6.0, a user with only users.edit can send a PATCH to /api/v1/users/{their_own_id} and grant themselves any permission except admin and superuser — for example `assets.view`, `assets.create`, `reports.view`, import, etc. The issue is patched in version 8.6.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-47693
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 are vulnerable to CSV Injection (Formula Injection) in its log export functionality. User-controlled data — specifically the username field — is written to exported CSV files without sanitizing formula trigger characters (=, +, -, @). When an administrator exports activity logs and opens the resulting CSV in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets), any formula stored in a username is executed by the application. This can be used for phishing attacks against administrators or data exfiltration. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-12164
SUMMARY

Fortra File Integrity Monitoring (FIM), formerly Tripwire Enterprise, versions prior to 9.4.0 may assign incorrect or elevated effective permissions to users created by the tetool import command while FIM is running, particularly when the import also creates or changes roles or role-permission relationships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
0.8