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

Comparison Overview

Prince George's County Public SchoolsPrince George's County Public Schools
VS
Montgomery County Public SchoolsMontgomery County Public Schools
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

14201 School Lane, Upper Marlboro, MD, US, 20772

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.pgcps.org/
679/1000Weak

Prince George's County Public Schools (PGCPS), one of the nation's 25 largest school districts, has 200 schools and centers, more than 133,000 students and 22,000 employees. The school system serves a diverse student population from urban, suburban and rural communities...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:13,358
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
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
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's 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
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 Prince George's County Public Schools 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 - Prince George's County Public Schools (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Prince George's County Public Schools cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Prince George's County Public Schools

Prince George's County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
PGC402072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
PGC407050824
Montgomery County Public Schools

Montgomery County Public Schools

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-45537
SUMMARY

OpenSIPS is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) server implementation. In versions prior to 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1, the construct_uri() function concatenates multiple URI components (protocol, username, domain, port, params) into a fixed 1024-byte global BSS buffer without any bounds checking. When a routing script calls construct_uri() with an attacker-controlled username, a combined component length exceeding 1024 bytes overflows the buffer, corrupting adjacent global data with attacker-controlled content. The overflow reaches disable_503_translation, a global flag controlling SIP 503 response handling, allowing an attacker to deterministically set the flag via the URI username and alter the server's routing behavior for subsequent messages. Because the same buffer is shared with contact_builder(), the overflow also corrupts that function's data, and without a memory sanitizer the adjacent globals are silently overwritten on every request containing a long username. This issue has been fixed in versions 3.6.6 and 4.0.0-rc1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-18819
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-18818
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Ehco1996 django-sspanel up to 2023.12.26. This affects the function TicketDetailView of the file apps/sspanel/views.py of the component Support Ticket Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-70620
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit 87babb5 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows admin-privileged attackers to direct the server to probe internal network resources by supplying arbitrary URLs to the embedding endpoint configuration without scheme, host, IP range, or DNS rebind validation. Attackers can submit loopback addresses, RFC 1918 ranges, or link-local addresses through the embedding endpoint API to partially read responses from cloud instance metadata services, internal APIs, and other hosts reachable from the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-70619
SUMMARY

Odysseus before commit bf325f6 contains a missing authorization vulnerability that allows authenticated non-admin users to manage server-wide embedding backend configuration by invoking endpoint management routes that verify session authentication but omit the admin authorization guard. Attackers can supply an attacker-controlled URL to overwrite the embedding backend persisted in the endpoint configuration file and process environment, causing all subsequent embedding operations including chat messages, RAG queries, memory entries, and vault text to be transmitted in plaintext to the attacker-controlled destination, or delete the endpoint configuration to deny embedding service to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-04
UPDATED
Date2026-08-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8