Comparison Overview

U.S. Department of Education

VS

FEMA

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, 20202, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Our mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED is dedicated to: • Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds. • Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research. • Focusing national attention on key educational issues. • Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 10,612
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

FEMA

500 C Street SW, None, Washington, DC, US, 20472
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 550 and 599

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). When disaster strikes, America looks to FEMA to support survivors and first responders in communities all across the country. This page provides career related information, job announcements and relevant updates for the agency’s current and future workforce. FEMA fosters innovation, rewards performance and creativity, and provides challenges on a routine basis with a well-skilled, knowledgeable, and high performance workforce. Join our mission to support Americans when they need you most!

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 19,641
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/usedgov.jpeg
U.S. Department of Education
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/fema.jpeg
FEMA
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. Department of Education
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
FEMA
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for U.S. Department of Education in 2026.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FEMA in 2026.

Incident History — U.S. Department of Education (X = Date, Y = Severity)

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

Incident History — FEMA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FEMA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/usedgov.jpeg
U.S. Department of Education
Incidents

Date Detected: 08/2023
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fema.jpeg
FEMA
Incidents

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

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Exploitation of misconfigured or default security settings
Motivation: Data theft, credential harvesting, potential data manipulation/deletion
Blog: Blog

FAQ

U.S. Department of Education company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to FEMA company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

FEMA company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to U.S. Department of Education company.

In the current year, FEMA company has reported more cyber incidents than U.S. Department of Education company.

FEMA company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while U.S. Department of Education company has not reported such incidents publicly.

FEMA company has disclosed at least one data breach, while U.S. Department of Education company has not reported such incidents publicly.

FEMA company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while U.S. Department of Education company has not reported such incidents publicly.

FEMA company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while U.S. Department of Education company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

FEMA company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to U.S. Department of Education company.

FEMA company employs more people globally than U.S. Department of Education company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA holds HIPAA certification.

Neither U.S. Department of Education nor FEMA 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