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 Dar es SalaamU.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam
VS
Australian Public ServiceAustralian Public Service
U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam

U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam

686 Old Bagamoyo Road, Msasani, 1, TZ

Last Update: 24/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://tz.usembassy.gov
757/1000Fair

Official account of the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania. For Twitter follow me on https://twitter.com/USAmbTanzania. Terms of Use of this and other social media platforms are available at: https://www.state.gov/tou

NAICS:541821
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:75
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Australian Public Service

Australian Public Service

Canberra, AU

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
779/1000Fair

The work of the Australian Public Service (APS) touches almost every part of Australian life. We provide policy advice to the Australian government on everything from national health to foreign policy. Work towards something greater than yourself. The Australian Publi...

NAICS:541821
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:22,812
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam

U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam

-
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
Australian Public Service

Australian Public 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 Relations Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Relations Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Australian Public Service in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Australian Public Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Australian Public 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 Dar es Salaam

U.S. Embassy Dar es Salaam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Australian Public Service

Australian Public Service

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9