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

Comparison Overview

SAPSSAPS
VS
Metropolitan PoliceMetropolitan Police
SAPS

SAPS

ZA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.saps.gov.za
849/1000Good

Policing in South Africa. I am attached to the newly formed Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations. Formally I was attached to the Detecitve Service and have been conduction investigations for over 25 years. I have also been attached to the National Inspectorate ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:15,451
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Victoria Embankment, Westminster, London, GB, SW1A 2JL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.met.police.uk
615/1000Poor

The Metropolitan Police Service is famed around the world and has a unique place in the history of policing. Our headquarters at New Scotland Yard - and its iconic revolving sign - has provided the backdrop to some of the most high profile and complex law enforcement ...

NAICS:92212
NAICS Definition:Police Protection
Employees:19,573
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SAPS

SAPS

-
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
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

-
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 Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SAPS in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Avg (This Year)

Metropolitan Police has 8.26% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - SAPS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SAPS 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 - Metropolitan Police (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Police 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...
SAPS

SAPS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Metropolitan Police

Metropolitan Police

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1774599822
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MET102117923
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MET9516923

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-7654
SUMMARY

The Admin Columns plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHP Object Injection leading to Remote Code Execution in versions up to and including 7.0.18. This is due to the use of `unserialize()` without an `allowed_classes` restriction in the `IdsToCollection::get_ids_from_string()` function, which processes attacker-controlled post meta values without proper validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to inject a serialized PHP object into a post's custom meta field and trigger arbitrary code execution by exploiting a bundled POP gadget chain, resulting in remote code execution as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-7523
SUMMARY

The Alba Board plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to access arbitrary private alba_card post data, including title, description, assignee, due date, tags, and comments, that is intended to be restricted to Administrators and Editors. The handler is registered via the wp_ajax_nopriv_ hook and its nonce is exposed to all site visitors through wp_localize_script on pages containing the [alba_board] shortcode, making this exploitable by unauthenticated users who can access any such page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-45409
SUMMARY

Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) for Python provides support for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) and Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing. In versions prior to 3.15, payloads such as `"\u0660" * N` or `"\u30fb" * N + "\u6f22"` utilize the `valid_contexto` function prior to length rejection, and for high values of `N` will take a long time to process. This is the same issue as CVE-2024-3651, however the original remediation in 2024 was not a complete fix. A specially crafted argument to the `idna.encode()` function could consume significant resources. This may lead to a denial-of-service. Starting in version 3.14, the function rejects long inputs as soon as practicable prior to any further processing to minimize resource consumption. In version 3.15, this approach was extended to lesser used alternate functions (i.e. per-label conversions and codec support). A workaround is available. Domain names cannot exceed 253 characters in length. If this length limit is enforced prior to passing the domain to the `idna.encode()` function, it should no longer consume significant resources. This is triggered by arbitrarily large inputs that would not occur in normal usage, but may be passed to the library assuming there is no preliminary input validation by the higher-level application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11431
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Projects Service download endpoint shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. An authenticated user can supply a crafted path parameter that bypasses validation, allowing arbitrary files (including entire directories returned as archives) to be read from the server filesystem. Because the readable files include service configuration and credential material, exploitation can be used to gather information enabling further compromise. The issue can be combined with CVE-2026-11424 to reach the cloud-side endpoint. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, the readable configuration could have exposed credentials shared across services. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-11429
SUMMARY

A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Git Service component shared by Altium Enterprise Server and Altium 365. The service accepts a sequence of post-clone file-manipulation operations that use user-supplied paths without validation, allowing an authenticated user with basic git access to move arbitrary files outside the intended repository area. This file-move primitive can be used to place attacker-controlled script content into directories where it is later executed by the service, resulting in remote code execution under the Git Service account. On multi-tenant Altium 365 deployments, this could have allowed access to data belonging to other tenants on the same infrastructure node. Altium Enterprise Server is fixed in 8.1.1; the issue has been remediated in Altium 365 at the service level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-05
UPDATED
Date2026-06-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/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