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

Comparison Overview

State of IndianaState of Indiana
VS
Texas Health and Human ServicesTexas Health and Human Services
State of Indiana

State of Indiana

200 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, 46204, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
780/1000Fair

State government is more than senators, representatives, and elected officials. We build highways, provide drivers licenses, protect our children and vulnerable populations, create jobs, connect Hoosiers to job opportunities, maintain state parks, train law enforcement...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:14,308
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

4601 W Guadalupe St. , Austin, 78751, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://hhs.texas.gov
779/1000Fair

Texas Health and Human Services, also known as the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), helps more than 7.5 million Texans every month. The agency supports the needs of mothers, children and families through programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, women’s h...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:11,329
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
State of Indiana

State of Indiana

-
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
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

-
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 State of Indiana in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas Health and Human Services in 2026.

Incidents

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

State of Indiana cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Texas Health and Human Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Health and Human Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
State of Indiana

State of Indiana

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Texas Health and Human Services

Texas Health and Human Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-80138
SUMMARY

ClipBucket V5's web installer fails to properly validate or escape the php_cli_filepath parameter before passing it to shell execution. Unauthenticated attackers can submit a crafted POST request to the installer with a malicious php_cli_filepath value to execute arbitrary commands as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79912
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The impacted element is the function getCurrentTime of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing a manipulation of the argument ntp_server results in command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:P/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79911
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The affected element is the function setSystemConfig of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70665
SUMMARY

Doorkeeper OpenID Connect implements an OpenID Connect authentication provider for Rails applications on top of Doorkeeper. Prior to 1.10.4, the Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint persists client-supplied scopes without validating them against the server's configured scope set. Under certain conditions, this allows a self-registered client to obtain scopes beyond what the server intended to grant. In DynamicClientRegistrationController#application_params, the scopes attribute is assigned directly from params[:scope] with no validation against Doorkeeper.configuration.scopes or optional_scopes. Combined with enforce_configured_scopes being off by default and Doorkeeper's ScopeChecker prioritizing application-level scopes over server-level scopes, this creates a privilege escalation path. This issue is fixed in version 1.10.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-55805
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Drupal core versions: from 0.0.0 to 10.6.13, from 11.3.0 to 11.3.14, from 11.4.0 to 11.4.4, from 0.0.0 to 11.0.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.1.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.2.*.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA