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

Comparison Overview

Jackson County SheriffJackson County Sheriff
VS
SAPSSAPS
Jackson County Sheriff

Jackson County Sheriff

N/A

Last Update: 01/10/2026

View Profile
651/1000Weak

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:28
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
SAPS

SAPS

ZA

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.saps.gov.za
842/1000Good

Policing in South Africa. I am attached to the newly formed Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations. Formally I was attached to the Detecitve Service and have been conduction investigations for over 25 years. I have also been attached to the National Inspectorate ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:15,917
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jackson County Sheriff

Jackson County Sheriff

-
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
SAPS

SAPS

-
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 Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

Jackson County Sheriff has 35.9% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

SAPS has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Jackson County Sheriff (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jackson County Sheriff cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - SAPS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SAPS 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...
Jackson County Sheriff

Jackson County Sheriff

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JAC1790872901
SAPS

SAPS

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAP1788885365

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-112112
SUMMARY

An IPv6 FlowSpec validation bypass in the CZ.NIC BIRD Internet Routing Daemon allows an established BGP peer to inject FlowSpec rules matching destinations outside the address space authorized by the unicast-route validation procedure. With validation enabled on the receiving flow6 channel, BIRD fails to reject a destination prefix component with a nonzero offset, contrary to RFC 8956 section 5. It validates a reconstructed prefix with zero-filled skipped bits, although the original FlowSpec component can match a broader set of IPv6 addresses. Given a suitable unicast route from the peer, the rule can pass validation and, where export policy permits, be propagated to downstream peers. Downstream enforcement may cause unauthorized traffic filtering or redirection.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-112111
SUMMARY

The Bootstrap Shortcodes plugin for WordPress before 3.4.6 is vulnerable to stored XSS via the id attribute of the [bs_tcontent] shortcode. The bs_tcontent() shortcode handler in inc/bs_tabs.php emits the id attribute value into an unquoted HTML attribute. esc_attr() is applied, but it does not encode space characters, so a space in the supplied value terminates the attribute and any following text is parsed as additional HTML attributes, including JavaScript event handlers. This allows authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject arbitrary web script that executes in the browser of any user who views the page and interacts with the injected element.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-112029
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in diem-project diem up to 5.1.3. This affects an unknown part of the file lib/model/doctrine/PluginDmUser.class.php of the component SHA1 Handler. Such manipulation of the argument salt/password leads to password hash with insufficient computational effort. The attack needs to be performed locally. The attack requires a high level of complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 1.0
Complexity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-112028
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file App/Home/Controller/VoteController.class.php of the component Vote Handler. This manipulation of the argument X-Requested-With causes business logic errors. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-112027
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in light0011 cms c774dce31c6df0055568a8d5c53d964d99be199d/f72cf46f601efb2a0618c3814cc2f61380b38930. Affected by this vulnerability is the function file_exists of the file Public/Home/js/uploadify/check-exists.php of the component Uploadify. The manipulation of the argument filename results in file and directory information exposure. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-18
UPDATED
Date2026-10-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9