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

Comparison Overview

Michigan Women’s CommissionMichigan Women’s Commission
VS
US Government Accountability OfficeUS Government Accountability Office
Michigan Women’s Commission

Michigan Women’s Commission

undefined, Lansing, Michigan, 48933, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.michigan.gov/mwc
757/1000Fair

The Michigan Women’s Commission (MWC) was statutorily created in 1968 [PA 1 of 1968] with the mission of improving the lives of Michigan women. Throughout its forty-four year history, the MWC has worked on many issues. Its current priorities are unlocking opportunitie...

NAICS:922
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
US Government Accountability Office

US Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, N.W., Washington, 20548, US

Last Update: 28/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.gao.gov
674/1000Weak

For more information about GAO, please visit www.gao.gov. General Information The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog,"​ GAO investigates how the federal go...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,303
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Michigan Women’s Commission

Michigan Women’s Commission

-
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
US Government Accountability Office

US Government Accountability 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Michigan Women’s Commission in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

US Government Accountability Office has 96.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Michigan Women’s Commission (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michigan Women’s Commission cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - US Government Accountability Office (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Government Accountability Office 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 Women’s Commission

Michigan Women’s Commission

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
US Government Accountability Office

US Government Accountability Office

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
US-1790619948
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
US-1773483893
🔒 Incident : Breach
US-FOR1772821514

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8