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

Comparison Overview

Frisco ISDFrisco ISD
VS
Prince George's County Public SchoolsPrince George's County Public Schools
Frisco ISD

Frisco ISD

5515 Ohio Drive, Frisco, TX, 75035, US

Last Update: 04/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.friscoisd.org
781/1000Fair

Frisco Independent School District remains one of the fastest growing public school districts in the state and nation. Within the 75 square miles of our District, FISD schools serve residents of Collin and Denton Counties, including residents of Frisco and portions of ...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:5,221
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

14201 School Lane, Upper Marlboro, MD, US, 20772

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.pgcps.org/
679/1000Weak

Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS), one of the nation's 25 largest school districts, has 200 schools and centers, more than 133,000 students and 22,000 employees. The school system serves a diverse student population from urban, suburban and rural communities...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:13,358
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Frisco ISD

Frisco 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
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

-
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 Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Frisco ISD in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prince George's County Public Schools in 2026.

Incidents

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

Frisco ISD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Prince George's County Public Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prince George's County Public Schools 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...
Frisco ISD

Frisco ISD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PGC402072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PGC407050824

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9