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

Comparison Overview

San Andreas Regional CenterSan Andreas Regional Center
VS
Boys & Girls Clubs of AmericaBoys & Girls Clubs of America
San Andreas Regional Center

San Andreas Regional Center

6203 San Ignacio Ave, San Jose, 95119, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
725/1000Moderate

Who We Are San Andreas Regional Center is a community-based, private nonprofit corporation funded by the State of California to serve people with developmental disabilities as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act. The Lanterman Act is part of Califor...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:328
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Boys & Girls Clubs of America

1275 Peachtree St NE, Atlanta, Georgia, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bgca.org
783/1000Fair

Boys & Girls Clubs of America does whatever it takes for America’s youth to have great futures. As the nation's premier (nonprofit) youth development organization, our programs, training and services support millions of kids and teens every year. We hire employees who ...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,959
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
San Andreas Regional Center

San Andreas Regional Center

-
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
Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Boys & Girls Clubs of America

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for San Andreas Regional Center in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Boys & Girls Clubs of America in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - San Andreas Regional Center (X = Date, Y = Severity)

San Andreas Regional Center cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Boys & Girls Clubs of America (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boys & Girls Clubs of America 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...
San Andreas Regional Center

San Andreas Regional Center

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SAN541072725
Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1