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

Comparison Overview

Colégio ProgressoColégio Progresso
VS
Prince George's County Public SchoolsPrince George's County Public Schools
Colégio Progresso

Colégio Progresso

Avenida Doutor Timóteo Penteado 4545, Guarulhos, BR

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

O Colégio Progresso, ao longo de seus 56 anos de existência, sempre procurou oferecer o que há de melhor em educação, ou seja, seguindo as novas tendências de mercado traz as inovações educacionais para o aprimoramento do aprendizado e desenvolvimento de seus alunos. ...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:416
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

14201 School Lane, Upper Marlboro, MD, US, 20772

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.pgcps.org/
679/1000Weak

Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS), one of the nation's 25 largest school districts, has 200 schools and centers, more than 133,000 students and 22,000 employees. The school system serves a diverse student population from urban, suburban and rural communities...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:13,358
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Colégio Progresso

Colégio Progresso

-
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
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

-
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 Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Colégio Progresso in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prince George's County Public Schools in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Colégio Progresso (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Colégio Progresso 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 - Prince George's County Public Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prince George's County Public Schools 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...
Colégio Progresso

Colégio Progresso

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PGC402072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PGC407050824

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2