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

Comparison Overview

Darlington County School DistrictDarlington County School District
VS
Clark County School DistrictClark County School District
Darlington County School District

Darlington County School District

120 E. Smith Avenue, Darlington, 29532, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.dcsdschools.org
729/1000Moderate

The Darlington County School District (DCSD) believes in challenging students and pushing their boundaries through classroom and life experiences, rigorous standards, and innovative teaching. The DCSD is a countywide district serving approximately 9,000 students in 20 s...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:582
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Clark County School District

Clark County School District

Clark County School District, Las Vegas, 89121, US

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
732/1000Moderate

The Clark County School District is the 5th largest school district in the nation with over 300,000 students in 357 schools and over 40,000 employees. Our focus is on people – the educators, staff, students and parents who make our community one of the most diverse an...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:23,267
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Darlington County School District

Darlington County School District

-
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
Clark County School District

Clark County School District

-
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 Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Darlington County School District in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

Clark County School District has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Darlington County School District (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Darlington County School District cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Clark County School District (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clark County School District 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...
Darlington County School District

Darlington County School District

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DAR311072625
Clark County School District

Clark County School District

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CLANEV1778215759
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CLA105072425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90647
SUMMARY

ASE/Kalkitech ASE2000 V2 Communication Test Set 2.35 through 2.37 on Windows contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability in the IEC 60870-5-104 TLS client (Task Mode). This allows a network-positioned attacker to bypass certificate validation via a certificate with multiple simultaneous faults, enabling a Man-in-the-Middle attack on protected communications.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-90487
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.4.2. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file xxl-job-admin/src/main/java/com/xxl/job/admin/business/controller/JobGroupController.java. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-90486
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in openstatusHQ openstatus up to f04c827112f30a11d571ebdad3892826034d6265. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file apps/status-page/src/lib/proxy/resolve-custom-domain-rewrite.ts. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The identifier of the patch is 86f370c9c20074c3c3fdec53a359874b8e670fd4. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue. This issue got fixed with a silent patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-79300
SUMMARY

SEP sesam before 5.2.0.24 mishandles User Authorization with MFA. If AD authentication is configured and MFA is enforced, an attacker can create a second OTP access capability. SEP sesam and Active Directory handle username capitalization differently, which may allow multiple SEP sesam user accounts to be created for the same Active Directory (AD) account. Active Directory treats usernames as case-insensitive, while SEP sesam distinguishes between different letter casing. As a result, the same AD user can be represented by multiple SEP sesam user accounts that differ only in username capitalization. When Active Directory authentication is configured and multi-factor authentication (MFA) is enforced, this behavior may allow an additional OTP Authenticator to be registered for the same AD account, reducing the effectiveness of MFA protection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90485
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in IOBit Uninstaller 15.5.0.11. Affected by this issue is the function sub_11838 of the file IURegistryFilter.sys of the component IOCTL Dispatch Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack requires local access. The exploit has been published and may be used. Identical IURegistryFilter.sys ships across multiple IObit families. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-12
UPDATED
Date2026-09-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.6
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8