Comparison Overview

Seattle Police Department

VS

State of Maryland

Seattle Police Department

Seattle, WA, US
Last Update: 2026-01-21

The Seattle Police Department is a large metropolitan public safety agency in Washington state with nearly 1,100 sworn officers. We receive over 800,000 911 calls annually in a city of 84 square miles. We have more specialty units than any other department in the state, including: traffic, harbor, mounted patrol, major crimes, property crimes, crisis response, SWAT, arson and bombs, K9, collaborative (community) policing, forensics, training and community response. On a daily basis, our officers are asked to do a little bit of everything - from investigating and solving crimes; to patrolling our waterways, parks and city streets; to keeping everyone safe during sporting events and parades; to connecting our city's most vulnerable residents with much-needed services. The mission of the Seattle Police Department is to prevent crime, enforce the law, and support quality public safety by delivering respectful, professional and dependable police services. View the City’s policies at seattle.gov/digital.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 419
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

State of Maryland

301 W. Preston Street, Baltimore, 21201, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Maryland is on the path to becoming the best state in the nation. Referred to as “America in Miniature”, Maryland embodies the very spirit of the United States. Maryland is home to ethnic groups of every origin, just about every natural feature, and much like our country, opportunity! If you are interested in a rewarding career in public service, consider the following: Full-time employment Part-time employment Contractual work Internships Seasonal work Maryland, where your work truly matters… Join us! State Jobs: https://www.jobaps.com/md/ State of Maryland homepage: http://www.maryland.gov/Pages/default.aspx

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 10,351
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/seattle-police-department.jpeg
Seattle Police Department
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/state-of-maryland.jpeg
State of Maryland
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
Seattle Police Department
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
State of Maryland
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Seattle Police Department in 2026.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Maryland in 2026.

Incident History — Seattle Police Department (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Seattle Police Department cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — State of Maryland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Maryland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/seattle-police-department.jpeg
Seattle Police Department
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2021
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Cyberattack on Microsoft Exchange email servers
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state-of-maryland.jpeg
State of Maryland
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

State of Maryland company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Seattle Police Department company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Seattle Police Department company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas State of Maryland company has not reported any.

In the current year, State of Maryland company and Seattle Police Department company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither State of Maryland company nor Seattle Police Department company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither State of Maryland company nor Seattle Police Department company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Seattle Police Department company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while State of Maryland company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Seattle Police Department company nor State of Maryland company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Seattle Police Department company nor State of Maryland company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

State of Maryland company employs more people globally than Seattle Police Department company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor State of Maryland holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N