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

Comparison Overview

London Police ServiceLondon Police Service
VS
Metropolitan PoliceMetropolitan Police
London Police Service

London Police Service

601 Dundas St., London, N6B 1X1, CA

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
742/1000Moderate

The London Police Service is committed to providing a safe and secure community through community partnerships and by striving to attain the highest level of professionalism and accountability.

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:143
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Victoria Embankment, Westminster, London, GB, SW1A 2JL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.met.police.uk
615/1000Poor

The Metropolitan Police Service is famed around the world and has a unique place in the history of policing. Our headquarters at New Scotland Yard - and its iconic revolving sign - has provided the backdrop to some of the most high profile and complex law enforcement ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:19,573
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
London Police Service

London Police Service

-
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
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

-
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)

No incidents recorded for London Police Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

Metropolitan Police has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - London Police Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

London Police Service cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Metropolitan Police (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Police 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...
London Police Service

London Police Service

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
LON214418123
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1774599822
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MET102117923
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MET9516923

FAQ

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