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 MexicoU.S. Embassy in Mexico
VS
State of MichiganState of Michigan
U.S. Embassy in Mexico

U.S. Embassy in Mexico

Paseo de la Reforma 305, Delegacion Cuauhtemoc, 06500, MX

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

Welcome to the LinkedIn page of the US Embassy in Mexico, incorporating the US Embassy in Mexico City, our 9 consulates and our 9 consular agencies. The US Ambassador to Mexico is Christopher Landau.

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:270
Subsidiaries:75
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
State of Michigan

State of Michigan

State Capitol, Lansing, Michigan, US, 48913

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
789/1000Fair

Every day the contributions and achievements of State of Michigan employees have a direct impact on over 10 million Michiganders across the state. If you're looking for a fulfilling career in state government that can make a real difference in the lives of others, you c...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:35,704
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
U.S. Embassy in Mexico

U.S. Embassy in Mexico

-
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
State of Michigan

State of Michigan

-
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 Mexico in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State of Michigan in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - State of Michigan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State of Michigan 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 Mexico

U.S. Embassy in Mexico

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
State of Michigan

State of Michigan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9