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

Comparison Overview

Peel District School BoardPeel District School Board
VS
Montgomery County Public SchoolsMontgomery County Public Schools
Peel District School Board

Peel District School Board

5650 Hurontario St, Mississauga, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.peelschools.org
786/1000Fair

The Peel District School Board serves more than 156,000 students in kindergarten to grade 12. Operating more than 257 schools in the municipalities of Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga, the Peel board is the largest employer in Peel. At the Peel board, we inspire succ...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:10,386
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Montgomery County Public Schools

Montgomery County Public Schools

850 Hungerford Dr, Rockville, 20850, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
789/1000Fair

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), located in Maryland outside of Washington, D.C., is the largest school district in the state. MCPS has 209 schools and serves a diverse population of more than 160,000 students. MCPS offers competitive salaries and benefits, ha...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:15,863
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Peel District School Board

Peel District School Board

-
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
Montgomery County Public Schools

Montgomery County Public Schools

-
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 Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Peel District School Board in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Primary and Secondary Education Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Montgomery County Public Schools in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Peel District School Board (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Peel District School Board cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Montgomery County Public Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Montgomery County Public Schools 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...
Peel District School Board

Peel District School Board

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Montgomery County Public Schools

Montgomery County Public Schools

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2