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

Comparison Overview

Department of Transport and Main RoadsDepartment of Transport and Main Roads
VS
I work for NSWI work for NSW
Department of Transport and Main Roads

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Phone: 13 23 80, Brisbane, Queensland, 4000, AU

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au
775/1000Fair

We are a department of more than 8,800 employees across the state. Our vision is to create a single integrated network accessible to everyone. No department has a bigger role to play in keeping the Queensland of today moving, or in helping build for the future. Each y...

NAICS:922
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:6,202
Subsidiaries:62
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
I work for NSW

I work for NSW

Sydney, NSW, AU, 2000

Last Update: 24/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://iworkfor.nsw.gov.au/
799/1000Fair

The NSW public sector includes ten departments and many agencies and organisations working together to develop policy and deliver important services such as health, education, housing, transport and infrastructure across NSW. We are over 300,000 dedicated people who sh...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:99,797
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Department of Transport and Main Roads

Department of Transport and Main Roads

-
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
I work for NSW

I work for NSW

-
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 Department of Transport and Main Roads in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for I work for NSW in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Department of Transport and Main Roads (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Department of Transport and Main Roads cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - I work for NSW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

I work for NSW 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...
Department of Transport and Main Roads

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
I work for NSW

I work for NSW

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8