Comparison Overview

Secretaría de Educación Pública

VS

City of Los Angeles

Secretaría de Educación Pública

MX
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 850 and 899

MISIÓN/PROPÓSITO: La SEP tiene como propósito esencial crear condiciones que permitan asegurar el acceso de todas las mexicanas y mexicanos a una educación de calidad, en el nivel y modalidad que la requieran y en el lugar donde la demanden. VISIÓN: En el año 2025, México cuenta con un sistema educativo amplio, articulado y diversificado, que ofrece educación para el desarrollo humano integral de su población. El sistema es reconocido nacional e internacionalmente por su calidad y constituye el eje básico del desarrollo cultural, científico, tecnológico, económico y social de la Nación.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 152,762
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

City of Los Angeles

200 North Spring St., Los Angeles, 90012, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

The City of Los Angeles employs more than 45,000 people in a wide range of careers. Visit our website for information on current openings, including regular civil service positions, exempt and emergency appointment opportunities, in addition to internships! The City of Los Angeles is a Mayor-Council-Commission form of government, as originally adopted by voters of the City of Los Angeles, effective July 1, 1925, and reaffirmed by a new Charter effective July 1, 2000. A Mayor, City Controller, and City Attorney are elected by City residents every four years. Fifteen City Council members representing fifteen districts are elected by the people for four-year terms, for a maximum of two terms. Members of Commissions are generally appointed by the Mayor, subject to the approval of the City Council. General Managers of the various City departments are also appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. Most employees of the City are subject to the civil service provisions of the City Charter.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 15,702
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sep.jpeg
Secretaría de Educación Pública
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/city-of-los-angeles.jpeg
City of Los Angeles
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
Secretaría de Educación Pública
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
City of Los Angeles
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Secretaría de Educación Pública in 2026.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Los Angeles in 2026.

Incident History — Secretaría de Educación Pública (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Secretaría de Educación Pública cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — City of Los Angeles (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Los Angeles cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sep.jpeg
Secretaría de Educación Pública
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/city-of-los-angeles.jpeg
City of Los Angeles
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Secretaría de Educación Pública company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to City of Los Angeles company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, City of Los Angeles company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Secretaría de Educación Pública company.

In the current year, City of Los Angeles company and Secretaría de Educación Pública company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither City of Los Angeles company nor Secretaría de Educación Pública company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither City of Los Angeles company nor Secretaría de Educación Pública company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither City of Los Angeles company nor Secretaría de Educación Pública company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública company nor City of Los Angeles company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

City of Los Angeles company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Secretaría de Educación Pública company.

Secretaría de Educación Pública company employs more people globally than City of Los Angeles company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Secretaría de Educación Pública nor City of Los Angeles 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