Comparison Overview

Dallas County

VS

State of Minnesota

Dallas County

None, None, None, None, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 550 and 599

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-born, contributing to the unique vibrancy that sets our County apart. We provide essential community programs, including public and mental health services, a court and juvenile justice system, the recording of property and the issuance of licenses for marriage, drivers and vehicle plates. These services are provided to the citizens by more than 6,500 employees working in 100 different departments and elected offices. Whether you’re a seasoned professional, ready to apply your expertise to the next challenge, or a new member of the workforce researching career options, we invite you to explore our wide range of job opportunities.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 4,476
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

State of Minnesota

75 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Saint Paul, Minnesota, US, 55155
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

Minnesota State Government is the third largest employer in the state of Minnesota, employing over 50,000 diverse and talented employees in more than 100 state agencies, boards, commissions, colleges, and universities. Our workplaces can be found across the state in 86 out of 87 Minnesota counties and a small share of employees work in out-of-state locations. When you bring your career to the State of Minnesota, the work you do affects the quality of life of millions of Minnesotans. From those who shape policy, to those who keep us safe, preserve our environment, or take care of our most vulnerable populations, we take our responsibilities to the public seriously. Join us as we continue to serve our great state and build a better Minnesota. To learn more about our career opportunities and comprehensive benefits, visit www.mn.gov/careers. To learn more about our state agencies, boards, commissions, colleges, and universities, visit http://mn.gov/portal/government/state/agencies-boards-commissions.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 58,237
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/dallas-county.jpeg
Dallas County
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/state-of-minnesota.jpeg
State of Minnesota
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
Dallas County
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
State of Minnesota
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Dallas County in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Minnesota in 2025.

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

Dallas County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — State of Minnesota (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Minnesota cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dallas-county.jpeg
Dallas County
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External System Hacking
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-minnesota.jpeg
State of Minnesota
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

State of Minnesota company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Dallas County company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Dallas County company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas State of Minnesota company has not reported any.

In the current year, State of Minnesota company and Dallas County company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Dallas County company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while State of Minnesota company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Dallas County company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other State of Minnesota company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither State of Minnesota company nor Dallas County company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Dallas County company nor State of Minnesota company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Dallas County company nor State of Minnesota company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

State of Minnesota company employs more people globally than Dallas County company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Dallas County nor State of Minnesota 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