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

Comparison Overview

Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et ParcsEnvironment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs
VS
Social Security AdministrationSocial Security Administration
Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

77 Wellesley St W, Toronto, CA

Last Update: 25/01/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

Official account of Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Terms of use http://ontario.ca/SocialTerms. -- Compte officiel du ministère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs. Conditions d’utilisation http://ontario.ca/Medi...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:1,642
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

6401 Security Blvd, Baltimore, 21235, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
474/1000Critical

Social Security provides financial protection for our nation’s people, supporting more than 64 million individuals and families. With retirement, disability, and survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in our nation's his...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:46,616
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

-
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
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

-
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 Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

Social Security Administration has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Social Security Administration (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Social Security Administration 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...
Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA1770710407
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA5102551100825
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA1773182549

FAQ

Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs company and Social Security Administration company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs and Social Security Administration, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs and Social Security Administration, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs or Social Security Administration ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs or Social Security Administration ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs and Social Security Administration, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Environment, Conservation and Parks | Environnement, Protection de la nature et Parcs and Social Security Administration, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8