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

Comparison Overview

Nottinghamshire County CouncilNottinghamshire County Council
VS
BelastingdienstBelastingdienst
Nottinghamshire County Council

Nottinghamshire County Council

County Hall, NOTTINGHAM, NG2 7QP, GB

Last Update: 28/07/2026

View Profile
698/1000Weak

The official LinkedIn page for Nottinghamshire County Council, for news, information and updates about the work we’re doing to ensure the healthy, prosperous and green future that all our communities deserve. Please note our inbox is not monitored 24/7. Visit our web...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:3,686
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Belastingdienst

Belastingdienst

Korte Voorhout 7, Den Haag, NL, 2500 EE

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
788/1000Fair

De organisatie bestaat uit diverse onderdelen, waaronder de Belastingdienst, Douane, Toeslagen, FIOD en enkele facilitaire organisaties. Met ruim 30.000 medewerkers werken we in kantoren die verspreid zijn over het hele land. Gezamenlijk heffen, innen en controleren we ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,978
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Nottinghamshire County Council

Nottinghamshire County Council

-
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
Belastingdienst

Belastingdienst

-
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)

Nottinghamshire County Council has 31.97% fewer 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 Belastingdienst in 2026.

Incidents

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

Nottinghamshire County Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Belastingdienst (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Belastingdienst 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...
Nottinghamshire County Council

Nottinghamshire County Council

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NOT1785263548
Belastingdienst

Belastingdienst

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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