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

Comparison Overview

Chicago Police DepartmentChicago Police Department
VS
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Chicago Police Department

Chicago Police Department

US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

The Chicago Police Department, as part of, and empowered by, the community, is committed to protect the lives, property, and rights of all people, to maintain order, and to enforce the law impartially. We will provide quality police service in partnership with other mem...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:3,683
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

J. Edgar Hoover Building, Washington, 20535-0001, US

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.fbijobs.gov
100/1000Critical

This is the official Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) LinkedIn account and is used to build awareness of workplace culture, engagement opportunities, and the FBI mission. The FBI does not collect comments or messages through this account. The FBI is the premier ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:10,425
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
19
Known data breaches
14
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Chicago Police Department

Chicago Police Department

-
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
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

-
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 Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chicago Police Department in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has 1744.66% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Chicago Police Department (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chicago Police Department cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Chicago Police Department

Chicago Police Department

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FBI1789057420
🔒 Incident : Breach
FBI1788603918
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FBIMED1787142272

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA