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

Comparison Overview

Pro EducationPro Education
VS
Jefferson County Public SchoolsJefferson County Public Schools
Pro Education

Pro Education

Marathon 7, Hilversum, 1213 PD, NL

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.proeducation.nl
762/1000Fair

Pro Education is een van de grootste opleiders op paramedisch gebied in Nederland. En of u nu fysiotherapeut, oefentherapeut, logopedist, ergotherapeut of diëtist bent, bij Pro Education vindt u een gevarieerd en actueel bij- en nascholingsaanbod, waarmee we u helpen uw...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:137
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Jefferson County Public Schools

Jefferson County Public Schools

3332 Newburg Road, Louisville, 40223, US

Last Update: 11/06/2026

View Profile
717/1000Moderate

— 30th largest school district in the U.S. — 96,000+ students — 17,400+ full- and part-time employees, including 6,800+ certified teachers Vision All JCPS students graduate prepared, empowered, and inspired to reach their full potential and contribute as thoughtful, r...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:13,057
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Pro Education

Pro Education

-
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
Jefferson County Public Schools

Jefferson 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 Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pro Education in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jefferson County Public Schools in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Pro Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pro Education cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Jefferson 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...
Pro Education

Pro Education

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Jefferson County Public Schools

Jefferson County Public Schools

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
JEF1781152431

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA