Comparison Overview

Suffolk County Council

VS

Malmö stad

Suffolk County Council

8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk, GB, IP1 2BX
Last Update: 2025-11-26

Reimagine the possibilities. As one of the largest employers in Suffolk, we have a huge variety of exciting careers to offer people as keen to make a positive impact on the world around them as we are. As a modern, flexible, and effective council, we’re driven to make a difference to the environment, the communities we serve, and the careers of our people. We explore innovative ways to encourage, respect, and enable everyone to be the best they can be. By creating meaningful connections with our people and our partner organisations, we’ve built a culture of mutual collaboration, trust, and respect where everyone is supported to be their authentic selves. We aim to inspire and empower. To improve and evolve. To develop and innovate. To take pride and ownership of the world around us and ensure that we leave a positive and lasting legacy. That’s why it’s time to reimagine a career with the council and take a fresh look at what we can offer you.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 4,496
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Malmö stad

August Palms plats 1, Malmö, undefined, 205 80, SE
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Bli en samhällsbyggare – jobba i Malmö stad! Genom att arbeta i Malmö stad får du möjlighet att arbeta med hållbar samhällsutveckling. Som en samhällsbyggare spelar du en viktig roll i Malmös utveckling och därför ser vi oss som framtidens arbetsplats. Människors lika värde är en förutsättning för demokrati och är också en självklarhet i vår värdegrund. Med 20 000 medarbetare är Malmö stad en av de största arbetsgivarna i Skåne. Vi har över 400 yrkeskategorier representerade inom 22 förvaltningar. Är du intresserad av att jobba hos oss? Se våra lediga tjänster på http://www.malmo.se/jobb

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 13,521
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/suffolk-county-council.jpeg
Suffolk County Council
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/malmo-stad.jpeg
Malmö stad
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
Suffolk County Council
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Malmö stad
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

Suffolk County Council has 53.85% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Malmö stad in 2025.

Incident History — Suffolk County Council (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Suffolk County Council cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Malmö stad (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Malmö stad cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/suffolk-county-council.jpeg
Suffolk County Council
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Traffic overload (volumetric attack)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2023
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/malmo-stad.jpeg
Malmö stad
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Malmö stad company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Suffolk County Council company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Suffolk County Council company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Malmö stad company has not reported any.

In the current year, Suffolk County Council company has reported more cyber incidents than Malmö stad company.

Suffolk County Council company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Malmö stad company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Malmö stad company nor Suffolk County Council company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Suffolk County Council company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Malmö stad company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Suffolk County Council company nor Malmö stad company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Malmö stad company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Suffolk County Council company.

Malmö stad company employs more people globally than Suffolk County Council company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Suffolk County Council nor Malmö stad holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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