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

Comparison Overview

NAT - Commission for Natural ResourcesNAT - Commission for Natural Resources
VS
State of OhioState of Ohio
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

Rue Belliard 99/101, Bruxelles, 1040, BE

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile

The NAT commission brings together over 100 mayors, councillors and regional presidents and covers a wide range of topics related to rural development, health, agriculture, forestry, fishery, civil protection, consumer protection and tourism. The Rural Agenda for Europ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
State of Ohio

State of Ohio

US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://ohio.gov
783/1000Fair

Employment with the State of Ohio is more than ‘just a job’ – it is a privilege to serve our families, friends and neighbors who rely on us throughout our great state. We are a team of dedicated public servants committed to high performance, innovative thinking, and del...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:28,065
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

-
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
State of Ohio

State of Ohio

-
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 NAT - Commission for Natural Resources in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Ohio in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NAT - Commission for Natural Resources (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - State of Ohio (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Ohio 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...
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
State of Ohio

State of Ohio

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
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:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2