Comparison Overview

Hackensack Board of Education

VS

NYC Department of Education

Hackensack Board of Education

191 2nd Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601, US
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)

Excellent

The Hackensack Public Schools are a comprehensive community public school district that serves students in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade from the City of Hackensack, in Bergen County, New Jersey, United States. As of the 2020-21 school year, the district and its seven schools, including the ECDC preschool program, had an enrollment of approximately 5,500 students. The district's high school serves students from South Hackensack and Rochelle Park as part of sending/receiving relationships with the respective districts.

NAICS: 611
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 501-1,000
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

NYC Department of Education

52 Chambers, New York, NY, 10007, US
Last Update: 2025-03-17 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

The New York City Public Schools is the branch of municipal government in New York City that manages the city's public school system. These schools form the largest school system in the United States, where over 1 million students are taught in more than 1,400 separate schools across the five boroughs. NYCPS is committed to creating and supporting learning environments that reflect the diversity of New York City. We believe that all students benefit from diverse and inclusive schools and classrooms, and we strive to welcome and support all students, families, and school staff. To do this, we hire diverse central, administrative, and school-based staff. Additionally, we strive to achieve equity and opportunity in our procurement by purchasing goods and services from a diverse vendor pool and supporting Minority/Women-owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs). These efforts ensure that our diverse student body receives the tools to thrive in college, in careers, and as active members of their communities.

NAICS: 6111
NAICS Definition: Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees: 74,830
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hackensack-board-of-education.jpeg
Hackensack Board of Education
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nyc-department-of-education.jpeg
NYC Department of Education
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Hackensack Board of Education
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
NYC Department of Education
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Hackensack Board of Education in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for NYC Department of Education in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Hackensack Board of Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hackensack Board of Education cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” NYC Department of Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NYC Department of Education cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hackensack-board-of-education.jpeg
Hackensack Board of Education
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nyc-department-of-education.jpeg
NYC Department of Education
Incidents

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Exploitation of MOVEit file transfer programme
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 02/2017
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both Hackensack Board of Education company and NYC Department of Education company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

NYC Department of Education company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Hackensack Board of Education company has not reported any.

In the current year, NYC Department of Education company and Hackensack Board of Education company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither NYC Department of Education company nor Hackensack Board of Education company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

NYC Department of Education company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Hackensack Board of Education company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither NYC Department of Education company nor Hackensack Board of Education company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Hackensack Board of Education company nor NYC Department of Education company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

NYC Department of Education company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Hackensack Board of Education company.

NYC Department of Education company employs more people globally than Hackensack Board of Education company, reflecting its scale as a Primary and Secondary Education.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tricked a user into giving up their Geode session credentials to submit malicious commands on the target system on behalf of the authenticated user. This issue affects Apache Geode: versions 1.10 through 1.15.1 Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.2, which fixes the issue.

Description

The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1.12 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'theme_editor_theme' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Local access is required to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.0.0.1 is able to mitigate this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The vendor was contacted beforehand and was able to provide a patch very early.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.8
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: Fix use-after-free caused by cyclic delayed work The origin code calls cancel_delayed_work() in ocelot_stats_deinit() to cancel the cyclic delayed work item ocelot->stats_work. However, cancel_delayed_work() may fail to cancel the work item if it is already executing. While destroy_workqueue() does wait for all pending work items in the work queue to complete before destroying the work queue, it cannot prevent the delayed work item from being rescheduled within the ocelot_check_stats_work() function. This limitation exists because the delayed work item is only enqueued into the work queue after its timer expires. Before the timer expiration, destroy_workqueue() has no visibility of this pending work item. Once the work queue appears empty, destroy_workqueue() proceeds with destruction. When the timer eventually expires, the delayed work item gets queued again, leading to the following warning: workqueue: cannot queue ocelot_check_stats_work on wq ocelot-switch-stats WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/workqueue.c:2255 __queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RIP: 0010:__queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RSP: 0018:ffff88806d108b10 EFLAGS: 00010086 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000101 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 0000000000000027 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88806d123e88 RBP: ffffffff813c3170 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed100da247d2 R10: ffffed100da247d1 R11: ffff88806d123e8b R12: ffff88800c00f000 R13: ffff88800d7285c0 R14: ffff88806d0a5580 R15: ffff88800d7285a0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880e5725000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fe18e45ea10 CR3: 0000000005e6c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <IRQ> ? kasan_report+0xc6/0xf0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 call_timer_fn+0x25/0x1c0 __run_timer_base.part.0+0x3be/0x8c0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? rcu_sched_clock_irq+0xb06/0x27d0 ? __pfx___run_timer_base.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? try_to_wake_up+0xb15/0x1960 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x603/0x7e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 ? sched_balance_trigger+0x1c0/0x9f0 ? sched_tick+0x221/0x5a0 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_handler+0x339/0x440 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 __walk_groups.isra.0+0x42/0x150 tmigr_handle_remote+0x1f4/0x2e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote+0x10/0x10 ? ktime_get+0x60/0x140 ? lapic_next_event+0x11/0x20 ? clockevents_program_event+0x1d4/0x2a0 ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x322/0x780 handle_softirqs+0x16a/0x550 irq_exit_rcu+0xaf/0xe0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x80 </IRQ> ... The following diagram reveals the cause of the above warning: CPU 0 (remove) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback) mscc_ocelot_remove() | ocelot_deinit() | ocelot_check_stats_work() ocelot_stats_deinit() | cancel_delayed_work()| ... | queue_delayed_work() destroy_workqueue() | (wait a time) | __queue_work() //UAF The above scenario actually constitutes a UAF vulnerability. The ocelot_stats_deinit() is only invoked when initialization failure or resource destruction, so we must ensure that any delayed work items cannot be rescheduled. Replace cancel_delayed_work() with disable_delayed_work_sync() to guarantee proper cancellation of the delayed work item and ensure completion of any currently executing work before the workqueue is deallocated. A deadlock concern was considered: ocelot_stats_deinit() is called in a process context and is not holding any locks that the delayed work item might also need. Therefore, the use of the _sync() variant is safe here. This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue and validate the fix, I simulated ocelot-swit ---truncated---