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

Comparison Overview

Minnesota IT ServicesMinnesota IT Services
VS
NEC CorporationNEC Corporation
Minnesota IT Services

Minnesota IT Services

600 North Robert Street, Saint Paul, 55146, US

Last Update: 28/07/2026

View Profile
740/1000Moderate

Minnesota IT Services (MNIT), led by Minnesota’s Chief Information Officer, is the Information Technology (IT) agency for Minnesota’s executive branch, providing the full range of IT services to over 70 agencies, boards, and commissions. MNIT also makes available a subs...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:1,347
Subsidiaries:59
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
NEC Corporation

NEC Corporation

7-1, Shiba 5-chome, Tokyo, 108-8001, JP

Last Update: 19/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.nec.com/en/
807/1000Good

NEC Corporation has established itself as a leader in the integration of IT and network technologies while promoting the brand statement of “Orchestrating a brighter world.” NEC enables businesses and communities to adapt to rapid changes taking place in both society an...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18,047
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Minnesota IT Services

Minnesota IT Services

-
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
NEC Corporation

NEC Corporation

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Minnesota IT Services has 31.97% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NEC Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Minnesota IT Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Minnesota IT Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - NEC Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NEC Corporation 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...
Minnesota IT Services

Minnesota IT Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MIN1785278058
NEC Corporation

NEC Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA