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

Comparison Overview

Mower CountyMower County
VS
National Park ServiceNational Park Service
Mower County

Mower County

201 1st Street NE, Austin, 55912, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.co.mower.mn.us/
660/1000Weak

Mower County's Vision: Vibrant communities where all people thrive Mower County's Mission: Provide quality services for all people of Mower County. Job Openings - https://recruiting2.ultipro.com/MIN1014MICCC/JobBoard/95583d73-4a6d-414c-9be5-fc850746f1b5/?q=&o=postedDat...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:114
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
National Park Service

National Park Service

1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C., US, 20240

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.nps.gov
802/1000Good

Most people know that the National Park Service cares for national parks, a network of over 420 natural, cultural and recreational sites across the nation. The treasures in this system – the first of its kind in the world – have been set aside by the American people to ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:14,176
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mower County

Mower County

-
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
National Park Service

National Park Service

-
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 Mower County in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for National Park Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mower County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mower County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - National Park Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Park Service 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...
Mower County

Mower County

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MOW643081925
National Park Service

National Park Service

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8