Comparison Overview

Pennsauken Township

VS

Rijkswaterstaat

Pennsauken Township

5605 N Crescent Blvd, Pennsauken, New Jersey, 08110, US
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)

Strong

Pennsauken is 12.8 Sq. miles with 35,000 residents. It is urban and suburban in nature. There are three active maritime locations and numerous industries in the town.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 137
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Rijkswaterstaat

Koningskade 4, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2500 EX, NL
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Strong

Rijkswaterstaat is de uitvoeringsorganisatie van het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. We beheren en ontwikkelen de rijkswegen, -vaarwegen en โ€“wateren en zetten in op een duurzame leefomgeving. Samen met andere organisaties werken we aan een land dat beschermd is tegen overstromingen. Waar voldoende groen is, en voldoende en schoon water. En waar je vlot en veilig van A naar B kunt. Samenwerken aan een veilig, leefbaar en bereikbaar Nederland. Dat is Rijkswaterstaat. Bij Rijkswaterstaat werk je mee aan de toekomst van Nederland met de ruimte om jezelf te blijven ontwikkelen. Gun jezelf een baan met toekomst. Gun jezelf Rijkswaterstaat.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 12,123
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pennsauken-township.jpeg
Pennsauken Township
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rijkswaterstaat.jpeg
Rijkswaterstaat
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Pennsauken Township
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Rijkswaterstaat
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pennsauken Township in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rijkswaterstaat in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Pennsauken Township (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pennsauken Township cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Rijkswaterstaat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rijkswaterstaat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pennsauken-township.jpeg
Pennsauken Township
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rijkswaterstaat.jpeg
Rijkswaterstaat
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Pennsauken Township company and Rijkswaterstaat company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Rijkswaterstaat company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Pennsauken Township company.

In the current year, Rijkswaterstaat company and Pennsauken Township company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Rijkswaterstaat company nor Pennsauken Township company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Rijkswaterstaat company nor Pennsauken Township company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Rijkswaterstaat company nor Pennsauken Township company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Pennsauken Township company nor Rijkswaterstaat company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Rijkswaterstaat company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pennsauken Township company.

Rijkswaterstaat company employs more people globally than Pennsauken Township company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreshRSS is a free, self-hostable RSS aggregator. Versions 1.26.3 and below do not sanitize certain event handler attributes in feed content, so by finding a page that renders feed entries without CSP, it is possible to execute an XSS payload. The Allow API access authentication setting needs to be enabled by the instance administrator beforehand for the attack to work as it relies on api/query.php. An account takeover is possible by sending a change password request via the XSS payload / setting UserJS for persistence / stealing the autofill password / displaying a phishing page with a spoofed URL using history.replaceState() If the victim is an administrator, the attacker can also perform administrative actions. This issue is fixed in version 1.27.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.6 and below, go-f3 panics when it validates a "poison" messages causing Filecoin nodes consuming F3 messages to become vulnerable. A "poison" message can can cause integer overflow in the signer index validation, which can cause the whole node to crash. These malicious messages aren't self-propagating since the bug is in the validator. An attacker needs to directly send the message to all targets. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.8 and below, go-f3's justification verification caching mechanism has a vulnerability where verification results are cached without properly considering the context of the message. An attacker can bypass justification verification by submitting a valid message with a correct justification and then reusing the same cached justification in contexts where it would normally be invalid. This occurs because the cached verification does not properly validate the relationship between the justification and the specific message context it's being used with. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.9.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Description

mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin is an Mkdocs Markdown includer plugin. In versions 7.1.7 and below, there is a vulnerability where unvalidated input can collide with substitution placeholders. This issue is fixed in version 7.1.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Description

go-mail is a comprehensive library for sending mails with Go. In versions 0.7.0 and below, due to incorrect handling of the mail.Address values when a sender- or recipient address is passed to the corresponding MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands of the SMTP client, there is a possibility of wrong address routing or even ESMTP parameter smuggling. For successful exploitation, it is required that the user's code allows for arbitrary mail address input (i. e. through a web form or similar). If only static mail addresses are used (i. e. in a config file) and the mail addresses in use do not consist of quoted local parts, this should not affect users. This issue is fixed in version 0.7.1

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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