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

Comparison Overview

OfqualOfqual
VS
County of Santa ClaraCounty of Santa Clara
Ofqual

Ofqual

1 Friargate Lane, Coventry, England, CV1 2GN, GB

Last Update: 22/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gov.uk/ofqual
763/1000Fair

The regulator of qualifications, exams and assessments in England. We maintain standards and confidence in GCSE, A level, As level, vocational and technical qualifications and Apprenticeship End-Point assessments.

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:424
Subsidiaries:62
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, 95110, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sccgov.org
774/1000Fair

The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses 1,312 square miles. It has one of the highest median family incomes in the country, and a wide diversity of cultures, backgrounds and talents. The County of Santa Clara c...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:13,214
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ofqual

Ofqual

-
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
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

-
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 Ofqual in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for County of Santa Clara in 2026.

Incidents

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

Ofqual cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - County of Santa Clara (X = Date, Y = Severity)

County of Santa Clara 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...
Ofqual

Ofqual

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COU1006080425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-80138
SUMMARY

ClipBucket V5's web installer fails to properly validate or escape the php_cli_filepath parameter before passing it to shell execution. Unauthenticated attackers can submit a crafted POST request to the installer with a malicious php_cli_filepath value to execute arbitrary commands as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
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-2026-79912
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The impacted element is the function getCurrentTime of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing a manipulation of the argument ntp_server results in command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79911
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The affected element is the function setSystemConfig of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70665
SUMMARY

Doorkeeper OpenID Connect implements an OpenID Connect authentication provider for Rails applications on top of Doorkeeper. Prior to 1.10.4, the Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint persists client-supplied scopes without validating them against the server's configured scope set. Under certain conditions, this allows a self-registered client to obtain scopes beyond what the server intended to grant. In DynamicClientRegistrationController#application_params, the scopes attribute is assigned directly from params[:scope] with no validation against Doorkeeper.configuration.scopes or optional_scopes. Combined with enforce_configured_scopes being off by default and Doorkeeper's ScopeChecker prioritizing application-level scopes over server-level scopes, this creates a privilege escalation path. This issue is fixed in version 1.10.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-55805
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Drupal core versions: from 0.0.0 to 10.6.13, from 11.3.0 to 11.3.14, from 11.4.0 to 11.4.4, from 0.0.0 to 11.0.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.1.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.2.*.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA