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

Comparison Overview

Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)
VS
Internal Revenue ServiceInternal Revenue Service
Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

N/A

Last Update: 02/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://assurance-maladie.fr
760/1000Fair

💡 Travailler à l’Assurance Maladie, c’est s’engager au sein d’un collectif animé par la culture du résultat, où chacun met ses compétences au service de nombreux projets pour protéger la santé de plus de 68 millions d’assurés. Depuis près de 80 ans, l'Assurance Malad...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:89
Subsidiaries:113
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service

1111 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, US

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.irs.gov
619/1000Poor

Welcome to the Internal Revenue Service’s official LinkedIn account. Here, you will find the latest and greatest news and updates for taxpayers to help them understand and meet their tax responsibilities. Also, this is a place to learn about a meaningful career with the...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:49,393
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

-
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
Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service

-
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 Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Internal Revenue Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Internal Revenue Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Internal Revenue Service 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...
Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

Assurance Maladie du Tarn (CPAM)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
IRS2822328102725
🔒 Incident : Breach
IRS1770978857
🔒 Incident : Breach
EXPEQUUNIIRS1769265453

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8