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

Comparison Overview

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural DevelopmentMichigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development
VS
USDAUSDA
Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

P.O. Box 30017, Lansing, 48909, US

Last Update: 02/01/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

The Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (MDARD) protects, preserves, and promotes the food, agricultural, environmental and economic interests of the people of Michigan. For more information about MDARD, please visit www.michigan.gov/mdard. Questions...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:322
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
USDA

USDA

1400 Independence Ave, Washington, 20250, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.usda.gov
739/1000Moderate

The United States Department of Agriculture is the United States federal executive department responsible for developing and executing U.S. federal government policy on farming, agriculture, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultur...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:23,339
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

-
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
USDA

USDA

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for USDA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - USDA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

USDA 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...
Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
USDA

USDA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DOLMONUSD1770602763

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA