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

Comparison Overview

City of QuincyCity of Quincy
VS
Malmö stadMalmö stad
City of Quincy

City of Quincy

1305 Hancock Street, Quincy, 02169, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.quincyma.gov/
650/1000Weak

From City of Quincy website: Just minutes south of Boston awaits one of New England's most captivating destinations, the City of Quincy ("quin-zee"). Called the "City of Presidents" and "Birthplace of the American Dream", Quincy is the birthplace of the second and ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:598
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Malmö stad

Malmö stad

August Palms plats 1, Malmö, 205 80, SE

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://malmo.se/jobb
779/1000Fair

Bli en samhällsbyggare – jobba i Malmö stad! Genom att arbeta i Malmö stad får du möjlighet att arbeta med hållbar samhällsutveckling. Som en samhällsbyggare spelar du en viktig roll i Malmös utveckling och därför ser vi oss som framtidens arbetsplats. Människors lik...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:14,500
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
City of Quincy

City of Quincy

-
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
Malmö stad

Malmö stad

-
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 City of Quincy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Malmö stad in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - City of Quincy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Quincy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Malmö stad (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Malmö stad 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...
City of Quincy

City of Quincy

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CIT087622
🔒 Incident : Breach
CIT017072825
Malmö stad

Malmö stad

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8