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 Natural ResourcesMichigan Department of Natural Resources
VS
City of Cape TownCity of Cape Town
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, 48909, US

Last Update: 09/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr
763/1000Fair

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state’s natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. For more information about the DNR, please visit www.michigan...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:754
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
City of Cape Town

City of Cape Town

12 Hertzog Blvd, Cape Town, Western Cape, ZA, 8001

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.capetown.gov.za
789/1000Fair

Cape Town, or the Mother City, is South Africa’s oldest city, its second-most populous and the legislative capital. It is made up of a diverse population, a rich history, world-famous tourist attractions and an exciting calendar of international and local events. More ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:22,387
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

-
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
City of Cape Town

City of Cape Town

-
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 Natural Resources in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Cape Town in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Michigan Department of Natural Resources (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Department of Natural Resources cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - City of Cape Town (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Cape Town cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
City of Cape Town

City of Cape Town

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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