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. Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
VS
County of Santa ClaraCounty of Santa Clara
U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, 20590, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
491/1000Critical

At the US Department of Transportation, we occupy a unique leadership role in global transportation. Since our first official day of operation nearly 50 years ago, our transportation programs have evolved to meet the demands of a changing Nation. Today, DOT is compose...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:5,361
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

70 W. Hedding St., San Jose, 95110, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sccgov.org
774/1000Fair

The County of Santa Clara is located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay and encompasses 1,312 square miles. It has one of the highest median family incomes in the country, and a wide diversity of cultures, backgrounds and talents. The County of Santa Clara c...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:13,214
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
U.S. Department of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

-
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
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

-
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. Department of Transportation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for County of Santa Clara in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - U.S. Department of Transportation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Department of Transportation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - County of Santa Clara (X = Date, Y = Severity)

County of Santa Clara 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. Department of Transportation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
USD1765223885
County of Santa Clara

County of Santa Clara

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COU1006080425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8