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

Comparison Overview

Fort Worth ISDFort Worth ISD
VS
Clark County School DistrictClark County School District
Fort Worth ISD

Fort Worth ISD

7960 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, 76116, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://fwisd.org/careers
738/1000Moderate

Preparing ALL students for success in college, career, and community leadership. With nearly 75,000 students, Fort Worth ISD enjoys a diverse student population and strong community partnerships. Under the leadership of the superintendent and the Board of Education, th...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:6,134
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
Fort Worth ISD

Fort Worth ISD

-
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 Fort Worth ISD in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

Clark County School District has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Fort Worth ISD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fort Worth ISD 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...
Fort Worth ISD

Fort Worth ISD

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FOR2034231222
Clark County School District

Clark County School District

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2