Comparison Overview

Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities

VS

State of Oregon

Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities

390 Robert St N, Saint Paul, MN, US, 55101
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 700 and 749

The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area. We run the regional bus and light-rail system and Northstar commuter rail, collect and treat wastewater, coordinate regional water resources, plan regional parks, and administer funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income families. Our board is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Governor.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 1,228
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

State of Oregon

Salem, 97301, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Official LinkedIn page for the state of Oregon. Oregon is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. It is located on the Pacific coast, with Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east. The Columbia and Snake rivers delineate much of Oregon's northern and eastern boundaries, respectively. The area was inhabited by many indigenous tribes before the arrival of traders, explorers, and settlers who formed an autonomous government in Oregon Country in 1843. The Oregon Territory was created in 1848, and Oregon became the 33rd state on February 14, 1859.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 10,454
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metropolitan-council-of-the-twin-cities.jpeg
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-oregon.jpeg
State of Oregon
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
State of Oregon
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Oregon in 2025.

Incident History — Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — State of Oregon (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Oregon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metropolitan-council-of-the-twin-cities.jpeg
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-oregon.jpeg
State of Oregon
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Data exfiltration and ransom
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

State of Oregon company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

State of Oregon company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company.

In the current year, State of Oregon company and Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company have not reported any cyber incidents.

State of Oregon company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both State of Oregon company and Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither State of Oregon company nor Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company nor State of Oregon company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

State of Oregon company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company.

State of Oregon company employs more people globally than Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor State of Oregon holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: 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: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
Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
Description

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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