Comparison Overview

Port of Seattle

VS

State of California

Port of Seattle

2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle, WA, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01

Founded in 1911, the Port owns and operates Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Fishermen’s Terminal — home of the North Pacific fishing fleet — and public marinas. The Port also owns two cruise ship terminals, a grain terminal, real estate assets, and marine cargo terminals through its partnership in the Northwest Seaport Alliance. Port operations help support nearly 200,000 jobs and $7 billion in wages throughout the region. Over the next 19 years, the port’s “Century Agenda” seeks to create an additional 100,000 jobs through economic growth while becoming the nation’s leading green and energy-efficient port.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 2,020
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

State of California

Sacramento, None, Sacramento, California, US, 95814
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Californians deserve a government that works for them and with them. One that will work to ensure opportunity and justice. We are building a California not for the few, but for all — including those who have historically been left out. We are doing the work to make our state a place for every Californian and all the diversity that makes us strong. Our state will be known as a place where everyone is respected, protected, and connected.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 44,043
Subsidiaries: 29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
29
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/port-of-seattle.jpeg
Port of Seattle
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-california.jpeg
State of California
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Port of Seattle
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
State of California
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Port of Seattle in 2025.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of California in 2025.

Incident History — Port of Seattle (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Port of Seattle cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — State of California (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of California cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/port-of-seattle.jpeg
Port of Seattle
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-california.jpeg
State of California
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Inadvertent Email
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Dissemination
Blog: Blog

FAQ

State of California company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Port of Seattle company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

State of California company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Port of Seattle company.

In the current year, State of California company has reported more cyber incidents than Port of Seattle company.

Both State of California company and Port of Seattle company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

State of California company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Port of Seattle company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Port of Seattle company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while State of California company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Port of Seattle company nor State of California company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

State of California company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Port of Seattle company.

State of California company employs more people globally than Port of Seattle company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Port of Seattle nor State of California holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models (LLMs). Prior to 0.11.1, vllm has a critical remote code execution vector in a config class named Nemotron_Nano_VL_Config. When vllm loads a model config that contains an auto_map entry, the config class resolves that mapping with get_class_from_dynamic_module(...) and immediately instantiates the returned class. This fetches and executes Python from the remote repository referenced in the auto_map string. Crucially, this happens even when the caller explicitly sets trust_remote_code=False in vllm.transformers_utils.config.get_config. In practice, an attacker can publish a benign-looking frontend repo whose config.json points via auto_map to a separate malicious backend repo; loading the frontend will silently run the backend’s code on the victim host. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

fastify-reply-from is a Fastify plugin to forward the current HTTP request to another server. Prior to 12.5.0, by crafting a malicious URL, an attacker could access routes that are not allowed, even though the reply.from is defined for specific routes in @fastify/reply-from. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.5.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17, A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified in the Angular Template Compiler. It occurs because the compiler's internal security schema is incomplete, allowing attackers to bypass Angular's built-in security sanitization. Specifically, the schema fails to classify certain URL-holding attributes (e.g., those that could contain javascript: URLs) as requiring strict URL security, enabling the injection of malicious scripts. This vulnerability is fixed in 21.0.2, 20.3.15, and 19.2.17.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/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
Description

Gin-vue-admin is a backstage management system based on vue and gin. In 2.8.6 and earlier, attackers can delete any file on the server at will, causing damage or unavailability of server resources. Attackers can control the 'FileMd5' parameter to delete any file and folder.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
Description

Portkey.ai Gateway is a blazing fast AI Gateway with integrated guardrails. Prior to 1.14.0, the gateway determined the destination baseURL by prioritizing the value in the x-portkey-custom-host request header. The proxy route then appends the client-specified path to perform an external fetch. This can be maliciously used by users for SSRF attacks. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.14.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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