Comparison Overview

Michigan eLibrary

VS

Arapahoe Libraries

Michigan eLibrary

Library of Michigan, Lansing, 48909, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

The Michigan eLibrary (MeL) is Michigan's online digital library. MeL contains reliable resources which include a state-wide shared catalog of over 400 participating libraries on both peninsulas, a suite of over 30 subscription databases containing full-text information from magazines, journals, newspapers, practice tests, courses, ebooks, car repair manuals and much more. MeL is available 24/7 to all Michigan residents at no cost. The Michigan eLibrary is the flagship program of the Library of Michigan (http://michigan.gov/libraryofmichgan). MeL is made possible by grant funds from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) administered by the State of Michigan through the Library of Michigan with additional funding provided by the State of Michigan.

NAICS: 51912
NAICS Definition: Libraries and Archives
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Arapahoe Libraries

5430 South Biscay Circle, Centennial, CO, 80015, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22

The Arapahoe Library District was established in April 1966 to provide public library service to all residents of Arapahoe County, except those living in the cities of Littleton, Englewood and Aurora. Residents of these cities are served by libraries established prior to 1966 that are funded and maintained by their respective city governments. All Arapahoe County residents, however, are free to use any of the libraries in the county. Our branches are: Castlewood Library Jeanne Davies Library Eloise May Library Ann E. Kelver Library Koelbel Library Mobile Library Services Sheridan Library Smoky Hill Library Southglenn Library You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter, and Goodreads.com.

NAICS: 51912
NAICS Definition: Libraries and Archives
Employees: 294
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-elibrary.jpeg
Michigan eLibrary
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/arapahoe-library-district.jpeg
Arapahoe Libraries
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
Michigan eLibrary
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Arapahoe Libraries
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Michigan eLibrary in 2025.

Incidents vs Libraries Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Arapahoe Libraries in 2025.

Incident History — Michigan eLibrary (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan eLibrary cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Arapahoe Libraries (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arapahoe Libraries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/michigan-elibrary.jpeg
Michigan eLibrary
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/arapahoe-library-district.jpeg
Arapahoe Libraries
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Arapahoe Libraries company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Michigan eLibrary company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Arapahoe Libraries company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Michigan eLibrary company.

In the current year, Arapahoe Libraries company and Michigan eLibrary company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Arapahoe Libraries company nor Michigan eLibrary company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Arapahoe Libraries company nor Michigan eLibrary company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Arapahoe Libraries company nor Michigan eLibrary company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Michigan eLibrary company nor Arapahoe Libraries company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Michigan eLibrary company nor Arapahoe Libraries company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Arapahoe Libraries company employs more people globally than Michigan eLibrary company, reflecting its scale as a Libraries.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Michigan eLibrary nor Arapahoe Libraries holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H