Comparison Overview

Puerto Rico Planning Board

VS

Metropolitan Planning Council

Puerto Rico Planning Board

P.O. Box 41119, San Juan, Puerto Rico, PR, 00940
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 700 and 749

Develops and implements public policy on planning, land use, economic and social development, as well as counseling the Governor and the Legislature in all related matters. Reviews and adjudicates cases of proposed residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments on a daily basis, as well as reviewing certificates of consistency with the PR Coastal Management Program.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 74
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Metropolitan Planning Council

140 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois, US, 60603
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Since 1934, the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has been dedicated to shaping a more sustainable and prosperous greater Chicago region. As an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, MPC serves communities and residents by developing, promoting and implementing solutions for sound regional growth. The Metropolitan Planning Council forges innovative, pragmatic policy solutions, working hand-in-hand with government, industry and community leaders to advance a competitive and livable Chicago region.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 50
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/puerto-rico-planning-board.jpeg
Puerto Rico Planning Board
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/metropolitanplanningcouncil.jpeg
Metropolitan Planning Council
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
Puerto Rico Planning Board
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Metropolitan Planning Council
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Puerto Rico Planning Board in 2025.

Incidents vs Public Policy Offices Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metropolitan Planning Council in 2025.

Incident History — Puerto Rico Planning Board (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Puerto Rico Planning Board cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Metropolitan Planning Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Planning Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/puerto-rico-planning-board.jpeg
Puerto Rico Planning Board
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metropolitanplanningcouncil.jpeg
Metropolitan Planning Council
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Puerto Rico Planning Board company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Metropolitan Planning Council company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Metropolitan Planning Council company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Puerto Rico Planning Board company.

In the current year, Metropolitan Planning Council company and Puerto Rico Planning Board company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Metropolitan Planning Council company nor Puerto Rico Planning Board company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Planning Council company nor Puerto Rico Planning Board company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Metropolitan Planning Council company nor Puerto Rico Planning Board company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board company nor Metropolitan Planning Council company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board company nor Metropolitan Planning Council company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Puerto Rico Planning Board company employs more people globally than Metropolitan Planning Council company, reflecting its scale as a Public Policy Offices.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor Metropolitan Planning Council holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: 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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H