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
Ministero dell'InternoMinistero dell'Interno
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
Ministero dell'Interno

Ministero dell'Interno

IT

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

Il ministero dell'Interno è una struttura complessa il cui assetto organizzativo è disciplinato dal D.L.vo n. 300/99 e dai provvedimenti attuativi. A livello centrale, si articola in uffici di diretta collaborazione con il ministro (D.P.R. n. 98/2002) e cinque dipartime...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:13,519
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Ministero dell'Interno

Ministero dell'Interno

-
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 31.03% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ministero dell'Interno in 2026.

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 - Ministero dell'Interno (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ministero dell'Interno 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 Parks and Wildlife Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TXP1781807663
🔒 Incident : Breach
TXPPAY1781850513
Ministero dell'Interno

Ministero dell'Interno

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8