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

Comparison Overview

Banyule City CouncilBanyule City Council
VS
The Singapore Public ServiceThe Singapore Public Service
Banyule City Council

Banyule City Council

1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough, Victoria, 3088, AU

Last Update: 05/01/2026

View Profile
763/1000Fair

We are a local government authority responsible for Banyule City Council. Banyule City Council is located 17 kilometres north-east of central Melbourne with 21 suburbs that cover and area of 63 square kilometres. Our community is made up of diverse cultures, belief...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:568
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Singapore Public Service

The Singapore Public Service

Singapore, SG

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.careers.gov.sg/
778/1000Fair

The Singapore Public Service works with the elected Government and Singaporeans to forge a common vision of Singapore’s future and bring it into reality. We take pride in living out our values of integrity, service and excellence. Follow us for stories on how our pu...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:22,220
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Banyule City Council

Banyule City Council

-
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
The Singapore Public Service

The Singapore Public Service

-
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 Banyule City Council in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Singapore Public Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Banyule City Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Banyule City Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - The Singapore Public Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Singapore Public Service 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...
Banyule City Council

Banyule City Council

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Singapore Public Service

The Singapore Public Service

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1