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

Comparison Overview

NOAA Technology Partnerships OfficeNOAA Technology Partnerships Office
VS
National Park ServiceNational Park Service
NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

Silver Spring, US

Last Update: 20/01/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

The NOAA Technology Partnerships Office (TPO) is a research support office that drives innovation across NOAA. TPO oversees two programs: the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program and the Technology Transfer Program. Through its programs, TPO awards grants t...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
National Park Service

National Park Service

1849 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C., US, 20240

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.nps.gov
802/1000Good

Most people know that the National Park Service cares for national parks, a network of over 420 natural, cultural and recreational sites across the nation. The treasures in this system – the first of its kind in the world – have been set aside by the American people to ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:14,176
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

-
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
National Park Service

National Park Service

-
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 NOAA Technology Partnerships Office in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for National Park Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NOAA Technology Partnerships Office (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NOAA Technology Partnerships Office cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - National Park Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

National Park Service 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...
NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

NOAA Technology Partnerships Office

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
National Park Service

National Park Service

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105222
SUMMARY

The alexpechkarev/google-maps Laravel package through 12.16 disables TLS certificate verification by default because the bundled config sets ssl_verify_peer to FALSE, which is passed to CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER. On-path attackers can present any certificate to intercept Google Maps web-service requests, steal the API key from the query string, and tamper with responses.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105221
SUMMARY

The gist RubyGem before 6.1.0 contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability that allows on-path attackers to intercept HTTPS traffic because http_connection in lib/gist.rb sets VERIFY_NONE. Attackers can present any certificate to read or modify GitHub API traffic, stealing OAuth tokens and login credentials to read and modify the victim's gists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105220
SUMMARY

Twine 2 desktop through 2.12.0 contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability in importStories() that executes markup from imported story files in the editor window. Attackers can craft a story file whose script calls the twineElectron openWithScratchFile IPC bridge to write and open a .bat file, executing code as the user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-105167
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file admin/donate.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument location can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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: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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105166
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The affected element is the function insert of the file fooddonateform.php of the component Food Donation Form. Performing a manipulation of the argument image-choice results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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: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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9