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

Comparison Overview

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Department of Transportation
VS
Secretaría de Educación PúblicaSecretaría de Educación Pública
Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Department of Transportation

125 E 11Th St, Austin, 78701, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.txdot.gov
488/1000Critical

The Texas Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining 80,000 miles of road and for supporting aviation, rail, and public transportation across the state. TxDOT and its 12,000 employees are committed to working with others to provide safe and reliable tra...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:6,718
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2
Secretaría de Educación Pública

Secretaría de Educación Pública

MX

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 850 and 899
https://onlinecareer360.com/
850/1000Very Good

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,...

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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Department of Transportation

-
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
Secretaría de Educación Pública

Secretaría de Educación Pública

-
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 Texas Department of Transportation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Secretaría de Educación Pública in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Texas Department of Transportation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Department of Transportation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Secretaría de Educación Pública 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...
Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Department of Transportation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEX001061025
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEX927090225
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEXFBI1773153659
Secretaría de Educación Pública

Secretaría de Educación Pública

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1