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

Comparison Overview

Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentTexas Parks and Wildlife Department
VS
Department of EducationDepartment of Education
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

4200 Smith School Rd., Austin, 78744, US

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.tpwd.texas.gov
592/1000Very Poor

The mission of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is to manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Since our i...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:2,484
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Department of Education

Department of Education

AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
715/1000Moderate

The Department of Education is responsible for delivering the Victorian Government’s commitment to making Victoria the Education State, where all Victorians have the best learning and development experience, regardless of their background, postcode or circumstances. Edu...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:23,811
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

-
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
Department of Education

Department of Education

-
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)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has 30.56% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

Department of Education has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

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

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TXP1781807663
🔒 Incident : Breach
TXPPAY1781850513
Department of Education

Department of Education

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEP1768379458
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEP115528822

FAQ

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