Comparison Overview

CNAM

VS

National Park Service

CNAM

50 avenue du Professeur André Lemierre, Paris, Ile-de-France, 75020, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-21

Rejoindre la Caisse nationale de l’Assurance Maladie (Cnam) c’est mettre ses talents au service d’un acteur majeur de la protection sociale française. C’est aussi évoluer au sein de l’un des systèmes d’information les plus importants d’Europe et développer de nouveaux services, pour garantir à nos publics (assurés, professionnels de santé et employeurs) des prestations de qualité au plus près de leurs attentes. C’est enfin veiller à la préservation de notre système de santé en garantissant à la population un égal accès aux droits et aux soins tout en régulant les pratiques et les dépenses pour un juste soin au juste coût. Pour cela, la Cnam s’appuie sur les compétences de 2 220 collaborateurs exerçant une centaine de métiers différents – dont la moitié dans le domaine informatique – répartis sur l’ensemble du territoire.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 3,154
Subsidiaries: 70
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

National Park Service

1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C., US, 20240
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 800 and 849

Most people know that the National Park Service cares for national parks, a network of over 420 natural, cultural and recreational sites across the nation. The treasures in this system – the first of its kind in the world – have been set aside by the American people to preserve, protect, and share the legacies of this land. People from all around the world visit national parks to experience America's story, marvel at the natural wonders, and have fun. Places like the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, and Gettysburg are popular destinations, but so too are the hundreds of lesser known yet equally meaningful gems like Rosie the Riveter in California, Boston Harbor Islands in Massachusetts, and Russell Cave in Alabama. The American system of national parks was the first of its kind in the world, and provides a living model for other nations wishing to establish and manage their own protected areas. The park service actively consults with these Nations, sharing what we've learned, and gaining knowledge from the experience of others. Beyond national parks, the National Park Service helps communities across America preserve and enhance important local heritage and close-to-home recreational opportunities. Grants and assistance are offered to register, record and save historic places; create community parks and local recreation facilities; conserve rivers and streams, and develop trails and greenways.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 14,207
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cnam-caisse-nationale-assurance-maladie.jpeg
CNAM
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nationalparkservice.jpeg
National Park Service
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
CNAM
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
National Park Service
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CNAM in 2026.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for National Park Service in 2026.

Incident History — CNAM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CNAM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — National Park Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Park Service cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cnam-caisse-nationale-assurance-maladie.jpeg
CNAM
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Account Hacking
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nationalparkservice.jpeg
National Park Service
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

National Park Service company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CNAM company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

CNAM company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas National Park Service company has not reported any.

In the current year, National Park Service company and CNAM company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither National Park Service company nor CNAM company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

CNAM company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other National Park Service company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither National Park Service company nor CNAM company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CNAM company nor National Park Service company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

CNAM company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to National Park Service company.

National Park Service company employs more people globally than CNAM company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CNAM nor National Park Service holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N