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

Comparison Overview

Mesa County, COMesa County, CO
VS
Social Security AdministrationSocial Security Administration
Mesa County, CO

Mesa County, CO

N/A

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.mesacounty.us/
691/1000Weak

The Mesa County government has been around since 1883, working to provide our people with the services they need and the professional service delivery they deserve. We have three elected County Commissioners, who can serve two four-year terms. There are seven other ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:633
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

6401 Security Blvd, Baltimore, 21235, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
474/1000Critical

Social Security provides financial protection for our nation’s people, supporting more than 64 million individuals and families. With retirement, disability, and survivors benefits, Social Security is one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in our nation's his...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:46,616
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mesa County, CO

Mesa County, CO

-
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
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

Mesa County, CO has 30.07% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

Social Security Administration has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Mesa County, CO (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mesa County, CO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Social Security Administration (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Social Security Administration 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...
Mesa County, CO

Mesa County, CO

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MES1780346065
Social Security Administration

Social Security Administration

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA1770710407
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA5102551100825
🔒 Incident : Breach
SSA1773182549

FAQ

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