Comparison Overview

Counter Tools

VS

Galveston County Health District

Counter Tools

205 Lloyd Street, Carrboro, NC, 27510, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Counter Tools empowers communities to become healthier places for all. With our partners, we advance place-based public health by enacting and enforcing policy, systems, and environmental interventions that promote health equity across communities. We aim to reduce the detrimental impact of unhealthy substances such as tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, and unhealthy food at the consumer’s primary point of exposure and access: the retail environment. What sets us apart: • Comprehensive guidance. We help you to not only collect data, but to manage, interpret, and leverage it to tell stories that inspire change. • Accessibility. We make complex systems, information, and goals manageable and practical. • Expertise. With our deep knowledge of how the retail environment impacts community health, we understand how to influence state- and local-level decision makers throughout the policy change process.

NAICS: 923
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Galveston County Health District

9850 Emmett F Lowry Expy, Texas City, 77591, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

The Galveston County Health District is committed to identifying public health issues that impact our everyday life. We work daily to prevent disease, protect against public health threats and promote good health for all of Galveston County. Mission: Protecting and promoting the One Health of Galveston County. Vision: To be a pillar, promoter, protector, and provider of healthfulness in Galveston County. Mission: Protecting and promoting the optimal health and well-being of Galveston County. Vision: To become the healthiest county in Texas.

NAICS: 92312
NAICS Definition: Administration of Public Health Programs
Employees: 258
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/counter-tools.jpeg
Counter Tools
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/galveston-county-health-district.jpeg
Galveston County Health District
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
Counter Tools
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Galveston County Health District
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Health Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Counter Tools in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Health Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Galveston County Health District in 2025.

Incident History — Counter Tools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Counter Tools cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Galveston County Health District (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Galveston County Health District cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/counter-tools.jpeg
Counter Tools
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/galveston-county-health-district.jpeg
Galveston County Health District
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Galveston County Health District company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Counter Tools company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Galveston County Health District company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Counter Tools company.

In the current year, Galveston County Health District company and Counter Tools company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Galveston County Health District company nor Counter Tools company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Galveston County Health District company nor Counter Tools company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Galveston County Health District company nor Counter Tools company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Counter Tools company nor Galveston County Health District company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Counter Tools company nor Galveston County Health District company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Galveston County Health District company employs more people globally than Counter Tools company, reflecting its scale as a Public Health.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Counter Tools nor Galveston County Health District holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H