Comparison Overview

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

VS

Metropolitan Police

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Washington, 20536, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 550 and 599

Protects America through criminal investigations and by enforcing immigration law to preserve national security and public safety. Privacy: http://go.dhs.gov/UC8 https://go.dhs.gov/lapse-2025

NAICS: 92212
NAICS Definition: Police Protection
Employees: 1,791
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
5

Metropolitan Police

Victoria Embankment, Westminster, London, GB, SW1A 2JL
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 650 and 699

The Metropolitan Police Service is famed around the world and has a unique place in the history of policing. Our headquarters at New Scotland Yard - and its iconic revolving sign - has provided the backdrop to some of the most high profile and complex law enforcement investigations the world has ever seen. Founded by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, the original establishment of 1,000 officers policed a seven-mile radius from Charing Cross and a population of less than 2 million. Today, The Met employs 32,000 officers together with specialist support staff and more than 2,500 volunteer police officers in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary. As well as policing London’s 620 square miles and 8.9million population, The Met has national responsibility for a variety of specialist policing units and hosts the UK’s Counter Terrorism Policing HQ. The Met is one of the largest employers in London and with a broad range of roles, from neighbourhoods to firearms. We’re recruiting people who want to make a difference, to help people and begin a career in a brilliant organisation, performing an exciting and extremely rewarding role. Today, now more than ever, is the time to join the Met. www.met.police.uk/careers

NAICS: 92212
NAICS Definition: Police Protection
Employees: 19,573
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice.jpeg
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metpoliceuk.jpeg
Metropolitan Police
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Metropolitan Police
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Average (This Year)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has 11.11% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Law Enforcement Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Metropolitan Police in 2026.

Incident History — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Metropolitan Police (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Metropolitan Police cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-ice.jpeg
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Whistleblower Leak
Motivation: Accountability for law enforcement actions, reform of ICE and CBP
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)
Motivation: Suppression of leaked data
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Brute-force attacks, Password spraying, MFA fatigue (push bombing)
Motivation: Retaliation for U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Financial gain (ransomware payments), Political/ideological (anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/metpoliceuk.jpeg
Metropolitan Police
Incidents

Date Detected: 09/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Illegal entry to IT systems
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Phishing, Misdirected Emails, Unauthorized Access, Lost/Stolen Devices, Accidental Publication, Malicious Insiders, Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Disruption, Accidental
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Metropolitan Police company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Metropolitan Police company.

In the current year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company has reported more cyber incidents than Metropolitan Police company.

Both Metropolitan Police company and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Both Metropolitan Police company and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Metropolitan Police company has not reported such incidents publicly.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Metropolitan Police company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Metropolitan Police company.

Metropolitan Police company employs more people globally than U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) company, reflecting its scale as a Law Enforcement.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds HIPAA certification.

Neither U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) nor Metropolitan Police holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N