Comparison Overview

Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities

VS

Department for Education

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

Department for Education

Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London, England, GB, SW1P 3BT
Last Update: 2025-12-01

Help us achieve world-class education, training and care for everyone, whatever their background. Whether you're just starting out, or an experienced professional, we have what you are looking for. Jobs include administration, policy advisers, digital, finance, commercial specialists and many more. You'll help shape the future of education, training and social care, by working with industry and education leaders to develop policies and services. We have offices across England, including in Manchester, Sheffield, Bristol, Leeds, Gatehead, Cambridge, London, Darlington, Nottingham and Coventry. We offer part-time, term-time and flexible working patterns, including working from home. You'll be able to shape your own learning and development with plenty of options available, and get involved with work across government, as well as in your local community. You can use your paid volunteer days to take on projects that matter to you.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 36,597
Subsidiaries: 66
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
27
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/uk-department-for-education.jpeg
Department for Education
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
Department for Education
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 Department for Education 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 — Department for Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Department for Education 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/uk-department-for-education.jpeg
Department for Education
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Exposure, Negligence, Insecure Work Practices
Motivation: None (Unintentional)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Misconfigured Email, Physical Theft/Loss (Laptop), Insecure Communication (WhatsApp), Improper Data Handling (Excel), Human Error
Motivation: Negligence/Incompetence
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: third-party compromise (Dodd Group), gateway attack, phishing (likely), dark web data exfiltration
Motivation: financial gain (ransom threats), espionage, geopolitical disruption, reputation damage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Department for Education 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.

Department for Education company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company.

In the current year, Department for Education company has reported more cyber incidents than Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company.

Neither Department for Education company nor Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Department for Education company and Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Department for Education company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company nor Department for Education company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Department for Education company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities company.

Department for Education 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 Department for Education holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities nor Department for Education 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