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

Comparison Overview

Elections AlbertaElections Alberta
VS
State of MissouriState of Missouri
Elections Alberta

Elections Alberta

100, 11510 Kingsway NW, Edmonton, Alberta, CA, T5G 2Y5

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.elections.ab.ca/
566/1000Very Poor

An independent, non-partisan office of the Legislative Assembly, responsible for administering provincial elections, by-elections, referenda, and Senate Nominee elections. We administer the Election Act and the provincial electoral process in this province.

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:90
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
State of Missouri

State of Missouri

301 W High Street PO BOX 809, Jefferson City, Missouri, US, 65101

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://mo.gov
757/1000Fair

Build the Missouri of tomorrow. Ensure a strong foundation today. Join a group of innovative team members focused on driving the State of Missouri forward. As public servants, our team members have the opportunity to produce work that is both lasting and important. Thi...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:12,114
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Elections Alberta

Elections Alberta

-
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
State of Missouri

State of Missouri

-
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)

Elections Alberta has 38.89% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Missouri in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Elections Alberta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Elections Alberta cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - State of Missouri (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Missouri 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...
Elections Alberta

Elections Alberta

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOVCEN1782851713
🔒 Incident : Breach
ELECEN1777609532
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOVELE1777661104
State of Missouri

State of Missouri

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STA2502125100825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8