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

Comparison Overview

Middlesex Sheriff's OfficeMiddlesex Sheriff's Office
VS
Metropolitan PoliceMetropolitan Police
Middlesex Sheriff's Office

Middlesex Sheriff's Office

12 Gill St., Suite 4700, Woburn, 01801, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile

The Middlesex Sheriff's Office is a law enforcement agency which serves the 54 cities and towns of Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The agency's primary responsibility is oversight of the Middlesex Jail & House of Correction in Billerica, Massachusetts. In addition, the...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:261
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Victoria Embankment, Westminster, SW1A 2JL, GB

Last Update: 15/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.met.police.uk
533/1000Critical

The Metropolitan Police Service is famed around the world and has a unique place in the history of policing. Our headquarters at New Scotland Yard - and its iconic revolving sign - has provided the backdrop to some of the most high profile and complex law enforcement ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:20,058
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Middlesex Sheriff's Office

Middlesex Sheriff's Office

-
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
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

-
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 Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Middlesex Sheriff's Office in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

Metropolitan Police has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Middlesex Sheriff's Office (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Middlesex Sheriff's Office cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Metropolitan Police (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Police 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...
Middlesex Sheriff's Office

Middlesex Sheriff's Office

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MID1770222940
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1786811088
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1774599822
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1785941090

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86098
SUMMARY

ntop nDPI versions before 6.0 contain a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the ndpi_json_string_escape function that writes beyond caller-supplied buffer boundaries. Attackers can trigger the overflow by supplying crafted network packet data including TLS SNI, HTTP headers, or DNS names that reach the vulnerable function, causing heap corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86097
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in param_set_default_file() and param_set_backup_file() functions that allows attackers to crash the autopilot process. Attackers can invoke 'param select' or 'param select-backup' commands with no path argument from any PX4 shell to trigger the crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86096
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in TemperatureCalibration::start() due to a race condition between task spawning and object deletion. Attackers can trigger the calibration process via shell commands to write to freed heap memory, corrupting unrelated objects or allocator metadata and destabilizing heap operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86095
SUMMARY

Unidata netcdf-c through 4.10.1 contains an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in NC4_HDF5_inq_attname() that copies HDF5 attribute names into a fixed 256-byte buffer without length validation. Attackers can craft HDF5 files with oversized attribute names to overflow the destination buffer, causing memory corruption and crashes when applications enumerate attribute names.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-48019
SUMMARY

Laravel is a web application framework. Prior to versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0, a CRLF injection vulnerability in Laravel's email validation, in combination with how Symfony Mailer and Symfony Mime handle certain character sequences, may allow an unauthenticated attacker to interfere with outbound email processing in applications that send mail to user-supplied addresses. This issue has been patched in versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2