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

Comparison Overview

Dallas CountyDallas County
VS
Department of Health (Philippines)Department of Health (Philippines)
Dallas County

Dallas County

US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.dallascounty.org
678/1000Weak

Dallas County is the second most populous county in Texas, accountable to two million residents spread over 30 municipalities. The County is a rich tapestry of individuals of varying ages, backgrounds, nationalities and faiths. One-fourth of our population is foreign-...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:4,594
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Department of Health (Philippines)

Department of Health (Philippines)

San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Santa Cruz, Manila City, 1014, PH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.doh.gov.ph/
782/1000Fair

The Philippine Department of Health (abbreviated as DOH; Filipino: Kagawaran ng Kalusugan) is the executive department of the Philippine government responsible for ensuring access to basic public health services by all Filipinos through the provision of quality health c...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:35,478
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dallas County

Dallas County

-
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
Department of Health (Philippines)

Department of Health (Philippines)

-
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 Dallas County in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Department of Health (Philippines) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Dallas County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dallas County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Department of Health (Philippines) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Department of Health (Philippines) 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...
Dallas County

Dallas County

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DAL000071324
Department of Health (Philippines)

Department of Health (Philippines)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA