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

Comparison Overview

Metro TransitMetro Transit
VS
Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMetropolitan Transportation Authority
Metro Transit

Metro Transit

560 Sixth Avenue North, Minneapolis, 55411-4398, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.metrotransit.org/
752/1000Fair

Make a difference with a career at Metro Transit! Our diverse community and expanding economy depend on Metro Transit to help get people where they need to be. Be a part of this important work. Together we can help our region thrive. Metro Transit is a mobility lead...

NAICS:4851
NAICS Definition:Urban Transit Systems
Employees:1,820
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

2 Broadway, New York, 10004, US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://new.mta.info/
776/1000Fair

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America's largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people in the 5,000-square-mile area fanning out from New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. The ...

NAICS:4851
NAICS Definition:Urban Transit Systems
Employees:20,625
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Metro Transit

Metro Transit

-
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 Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

-
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 Urban Transit Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metro Transit in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Urban Transit Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Metro Transit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metro Transit cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 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...
Metro Transit

Metro Transit

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MET1129161023
Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MET10309123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1