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

Comparison Overview

National Cyber Security CentreNational Cyber Security Centre
VS
City of AmsterdamCity of Amsterdam
National Cyber Security Centre

National Cyber Security Centre

NCSC, Victoria, SW1W , GB

Last Update: 17/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ncsc.gov.uk
692/1000Weak

The NCSC is making the UK one of the safest places in the world to live and do business online. We were set up to help protect our critical services from cyber attacks, manage major incidents, and improve the underlying security of the UK Internet through technological...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:240
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Postbus 202, Amsterdam, 1000 AE, NL

Last Update: 03/04/2026

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
National Cyber Security Centre

National Cyber Security Centre

-
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)

National Cyber Security Centre has 38.89% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Amsterdam in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - National Cyber Security Centre (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Cyber Security Centre cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
National Cyber Security Centre

National Cyber Security Centre

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NAT1777927020
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NATNAT1776947160
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NAT1771273670
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8