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

Comparison Overview

U.S. Embassy in San SalvadorU.S. Embassy in San Salvador
VS
United States Postal ServiceUnited States Postal Service
U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

Final del bulevar de Santa Elena, Antiguo Cuscatlán, SV

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://sv.usembassy.gov/es/
759/1000Fair

Welcome to the official United Sates Embassy in San Salvador LinkedIn profile!

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:66
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
United States Postal Service

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C., US, 20260

Last Update: 16/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.usps.com/
659/1000Weak

As the United States Postal Service continues its evolution as a forward-thinking, fast-acting company capable of providing quality products and services for its customers, it continues to remember and celebrate its roots as the first national network of communications ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:155,927
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

-
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
United States Postal Service

United States Postal 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 U.S. Embassy in San Salvador in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

United States Postal Service has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - U.S. Embassy in San Salvador (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Embassy in San Salvador cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - United States Postal Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United States Postal Service 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...
U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

U.S. Embassy in San Salvador

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
United States Postal Service

United States Postal Service

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP1776349784
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP853052025
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP001081724

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA