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

Comparison Overview

Parco Archeologico di PompeiParco Archeologico di Pompei
VS
Queensland GovernmentQueensland Government
Parco Archeologico di Pompei

Parco Archeologico di Pompei

Via Plinio, 26, Pompei, 80045, IT

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://pompeiisites.org
693/1000Weak

Il Parco Archeologico di Pompei è un Istituto del Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo dotato di autonomia speciale ed esercita le sue competenze nell’ambito della tutela, della conservazione e della fruizione pubblica. E' stato istituito con DL. ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:34
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Queensland Government

Queensland Government

1 William Street, Brisbane, 4000, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.qld.gov.au
798/1000Fair

ABOUT US We are the largest and most diverse organisation in our state. We have more than 90 government departments and organisations delivering for Queensland across 4000+ locations, from the Torres Strait to the Gold Coast; Mount Isa to Brisbane. This page is monitore...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:84,670
Subsidiaries:62
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Parco Archeologico di Pompei

Parco Archeologico di Pompei

-
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
Queensland Government

Queensland Government

-
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 Parco Archeologico di Pompei in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Queensland Government in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Parco Archeologico di Pompei (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Parco Archeologico di Pompei cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Queensland Government (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Queensland Government 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...
Parco Archeologico di Pompei

Parco Archeologico di Pompei

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAR756071625
Queensland Government

Queensland Government

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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