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

Comparison Overview

PITT COUNTY SCHOOLSPITT COUNTY SCHOOLS
VS
Fairfax County Public SchoolsFairfax County Public Schools
PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS

PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS

N/A

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.pittschools.org
743/1000Moderate

Pitt County Schools is a dynamic, thriving public school system, located in Eastern North Carolina. Our system includes 38 campuses from Pre-K Centers, Elementary, K-8, Middle, High School, and two Early Colleges. Mission: Pitt County Schools will lead collaboration b...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:2,125
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax County Public Schools

8115 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church, 22042, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.fcps.edu
699/1000Weak

Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), located in Northern Virginia, is the nation’s 9th largest public school system, serves a diverse population of more than 180,000 students in grades prekindergarten through 12. Fairfax County high schools are recognized annually by t...

NAICS:6111
NAICS Definition:Elementary and Secondary Schools
Employees:20,304
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS

PITT COUNTY 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
Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax 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)

PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS has 20.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Fairfax County Public Schools in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Fairfax County Public Schools 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...
PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS

PITT COUNTY SCHOOLS

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
INSPIT1778174944
Fairfax County Public Schools

Fairfax County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FAI16924623
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
FAI312080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
FAI305072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
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: 5.3
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: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
2.8