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

Comparison Overview

Capacity Building Center for StatesCapacity Building Center for States
VS
Texas Health and Human ServicesTexas Health and Human Services
Capacity Building Center for States

Capacity Building Center for States

N/A

Last Update: 06/02/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

The Capacity Building Center for States (the Center) partners with State and territorial public child welfare agencies to achieve better outcomes for children, youth, and families. Join our email community to stay in touch and in the know about what’s happening at the...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

4601 W Guadalupe St. , Austin, 78751, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://hhs.texas.gov
779/1000Fair

Texas Health and Human Services, also known as the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), helps more than 7.5 million Texans every month. The agency supports the needs of mothers, children and families through programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, women’s h...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:11,329
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Capacity Building Center for States

Capacity Building Center for States

-
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
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

-
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 Capacity Building Center for States in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas Health and Human Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Capacity Building Center for States (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Capacity Building Center for States cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Texas Health and Human Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Health and Human Services 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...
Capacity Building Center for States

Capacity Building Center for States

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9