Comparison Overview

Puerto Rico Planning Board

VS

RCAR

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

RCAR

10100, MA
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 800 and 849

Le RCAR a pour objet de garantir au titre des risques de vieillesse, d'invalidité et décès, des droits au profit de l'affilié et de ses ayants cause. Pour remplir cette mission, le RCAR est constitué d'un régime général, qui est le régime de base des affiliés du RCAR, et d'un régime complémentaire, conventionnel, destiné aux affiliés du RCAR dont le salaire dépasse le plafond fixé annuellement par le régime. Les deux principaux métiers gérés par le RCAR, sont la production, qui regroupe l'ensemble des fonctions de prise en charge de l'affiliation et du recouvrement des cotisations et contributions, et les prestations, qui regroupent l'ensemble des fonctions destinées à veiller sur le paiement des pensions et l'octroi des différentes prestations garanties par le RCAR.

NAICS: 921
NAICS Definition: Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
Employees: 71
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/rcar.jpeg
RCAR
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
RCAR
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 RCAR 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 — RCAR (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RCAR 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/rcar.jpeg
RCAR
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor RCAR holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor RCAR holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor RCAR holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor RCAR holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Puerto Rico Planning Board nor RCAR 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