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

Comparison Overview

Minnesota Board of AELSLAGIDMinnesota Board of AELSLAGID
VS
City of AmsterdamCity of Amsterdam
Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID

Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID

85 E. 7th Place STE 160, St. Paul, 55101-2333, US

Last Update: 12/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://mn.gov/aelslagid
758/1000Fair

The mission of the Minnesota Board is to protect the public health, safety and welfare by: * Ensuring that those entering the professional practice of architecture, engineering, land surveying, landscape architecture, geology, soil science, or those using the title o...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:10
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Postbus 202, Amsterdam, 1000 AE, NL

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.amsterdam.nl
788/1000Fair

Working for Amsterdam means working for the most beautiful city in the world. Think of its rich history, the role Amsterdam plays internationally, and events such as Sail, Gay Pride and King’s Day. Of course everybody wants to visit Amsterdam, or work or live here. As ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:19,929
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID

Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID

-
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 Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

-
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 Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Amsterdam in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

City of Amsterdam 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 Board of AELSLAGID

Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9