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

Comparison Overview

Hanover County Public SchoolsHanover County Public Schools
VS
Clark County School DistrictClark County School District
Hanover County Public Schools

Hanover County Public Schools

200 Berkley St, Ashland, 23005, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.hcps.us/
740/1000Moderate

Hanover County Public Schools (HCPS) is an award-winning school division that serves approximately 17,000 students in Pre-K–12 across 24 schools. These include 14 elementary, four middle, and four high schools, as well as one trade and technology and one alternative edu...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:1,718
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
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: 08/05/2026

View Profile
728/1000Moderate

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
Hanover County Public Schools

Hanover 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
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)

Hanover County Public Schools has 44.75% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

Clark County School District has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Hanover County Public Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hanover County Public Schools 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...
Hanover County Public Schools

Hanover County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HAN1773368680
Clark County School District

Clark County School District

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

FAQ

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