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

Comparison Overview

OC TranspoOC Transpo
VS
Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMetropolitan Transportation Authority
OC Transpo

OC Transpo

N/A

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://octranspo.com
739/1000Moderate

OC Transpo moves people in Canada’s national capital, and we are proud to be your choice to get there. With a population of over one million residents and covering an area of more than 2,790 square kilometres, Ottawa is one of the largest cities in Canada. We provide t...

NAICS:4851
NAICS Definition:Urban Transit Systems
Employees:385
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

2 Broadway, New York, 10004, US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://new.mta.info/
776/1000Fair

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America's largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people in the 5,000-square-mile area fanning out from New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. The ...

NAICS:4851
NAICS Definition:Urban Transit Systems
Employees:20,625
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OC Transpo

OC Transpo

-
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
Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

-
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 Urban Transit Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OC Transpo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Urban Transit Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OC Transpo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OC Transpo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Metropolitan Transportation Authority (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Transportation Authority cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
OC Transpo

OC Transpo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OCT244121122
Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MET10309123

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA