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

Comparison Overview

Polk County BoCCPolk County BoCC
VS
South African Revenue Service (SARS)South African Revenue Service (SARS)
Polk County BoCC

Polk County BoCC

330 West Church Street, Bartow, 33830, US

Last Update: 29/05/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.polkfl.gov
638/1000Poor

Overview Polk County Government employees more than 2,500 public servants in the areas of support services, human resources, public safety, infrastructure, tourism, sports marketing, planning and development. Polk County Board of County Commissioners As outlined in th...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:887
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

Lehae La Sars, Pretoria, 0001, ZA

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sars.gov.za
795/1000Fair

Its main functions are to: collect and administer all national taxes, duties and levies; collect revenue that may be imposed under any other legislation, as agreed on between SARS and an organ of state or institution entitled to the revenue; provide protection a...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:11,341
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Polk County BoCC

Polk County BoCC

-
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
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

-
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)

Polk County BoCC has 30.56% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for South African Revenue Service (SARS) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Polk County BoCC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Polk County BoCC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - South African Revenue Service (SARS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

South African Revenue Service (SARS) 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...
Polk County BoCC

Polk County BoCC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POL1780014583
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8