Comparison Overview

Seattle Police Department

VS

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, 20004, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mission is to protect human health and the environment. EPA works to ensure that: - Americans have clean air, land and water; - National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information; - Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively and as Congress intended; - Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy; - All parts of society--communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks; - Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized; and - Chemicals in the marketplace are reviewed for safety. The agency was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia with ten additional regional headquarters offices (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City, Denver, San Francisco, and Seattle) as well as more than a dozen laboratories, and other regional and programmatic offices.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 16,665
Subsidiaries: 1
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/us-epa.jpeg
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
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
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
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 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 — US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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/us-epa.jpeg
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company has not reported any.

In the current year, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company and Seattle Police Department company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company nor Seattle Police Department company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company nor Seattle Police Department company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Seattle Police Department company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Seattle Police Department company nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Seattle Police Department company.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) company employs more people globally than Seattle Police Department company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Seattle Police Department nor US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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