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

Comparison Overview

Sea GrantSea Grant
VS
State of IllinoisState of Illinois
Sea Grant

Sea Grant

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US

Last Update: 03/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://seagrant.noaa.gov
759/1000Fair

Science serving America's coasts since 1966 Sea Grant's mission is to enhance the practical use and conservation of coastal, marine and Great Lakes resources in order to create a sustainable economy and environment. NOAA Offical Program Office Community and economic ...

NAICS:922
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:95
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
State of Illinois

State of Illinois

US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://illinois.gov
819/1000Good

The government of Illinois, under the Constitution of Illinois, has three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. The executive branch is split into several statewide elected offices, with the Governor as chief executive, and has numerous department...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:11,299
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sea Grant

Sea Grant

-
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
State of Illinois

State of Illinois

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sea Grant in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Illinois in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sea Grant (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sea Grant cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - State of Illinois (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Illinois 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...
Sea Grant

Sea Grant

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
State of Illinois

State of Illinois

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STA1767411522

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44453
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 6b5370d, h2o is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack when calling alloca under certain conditions. When serving static files, h2o builds the file path on stack, by calling alloca. The maximum size of the memory allocated using alloca can be as huge as ~600KB, which exceeds the default pthread stack size used by musl libc (128KB). If the amount of memory allocated by alloca exceeds the stack size, the h2o server crashes with a segmentation fault, while it tries to touch the guard page. This issue has been fixed by commit 6b5370d.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44452
SUMMARY

h2o is an HTTP server with support for HTTP/1.x, HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. Prior to commit 8dc37cb, when h2o receives a ClientHello message over TLS or QUIC and it contains a zero-length SNI extension, the h2o server runs over the zero-length hostname while trying to copy the hostname, assuming that it is NULL-terminated. This is a potential denial-of-service attack vector in sense that it might trigger segmentation violation. This issue has been fixed by commit 8dc37cb.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-44436
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 8b178e6, Quicly is vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack through connection state corruption. In QUIC Invariants, the maximum length of a Connection ID is 255 bytes, while QUIC version 1 further restricts the maximum to 20 bytes. Quicly implements QUIC version 1 and therefore its CID buffers are limited to 20 bytes. However, to be able to respond to unknown versions of QUIC, its packet decoder accepts Connection IDs of up to 255 bytes. As its CID buffers are merely 20 bytes long, Quicly must reject QUIC version 1 packets with Connection IDs longer than that. The command line tool bundled with Quicly has had that check, however the library itself lacked such enforcement. As a consequence, when used by applications that lack their own enforcement, the connection state becoming inconsistent to buffer overrun. Fortunately, the overflow stops within the allocated chunk of memory, but nevertheless, the bug leads to assertion failures. This issue has been fixed by commit 8b178e6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44435
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit 937d0e9, an assertion failure is raised when the total number of valid handshake messages received over a CRYPTO stream of a single packet number space exceeds 32KB, causing a Denial of Service. This issue has been fixed by commit 937d0e9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-44434
SUMMARY

Quicly is an IETF QUIC protocol implementation intended primarily for use within the H2O HTTP server. Prior to commit dccf5d4, Quicly was vulnerable to stateless reset injection through lack of packet entry validation. The QUIC protocol is designed to withstand packet injection attacks, once the handshake is complete. Only packets that carry some secret patterns are considered as stateless resets. Quicly allows the peer to share up to 4 such patterns per connection. However, until now, it failed to determine which of the 4 slots that it uses to retain the secret patterns contains a valid entry. As the slots are zero-initialized, the failure meant that, unless the peer advertised 4 of such patterns, an all-zero pattern was treated as a stateless reset.In effect, this allowed an on-path attacker to reset QUIC connections governed by Quicly. This issue has been fixed by commit dccf5d4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-16
UPDATED
Date2026-07-16
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9