Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

York County, South CarolinaYork County, South Carolina
VS
United States Postal ServiceUnited States Postal Service
York County, South Carolina

York County, South Carolina

6 S Congress St., York, 29745, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.yorkcountygov.com
709/1000Moderate

Governmental entity responsible for operation and conduct of county departments and agencies and serving the general public of York County, SC. Includes but not limited to: Human Resources, Planning, Public Works, GIS (Information Technologies), Water and Sewer, Procu...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:423
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
United States Postal Service

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C., US, 20260

Last Update: 16/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.usps.com/
659/1000Weak

As the United States Postal Service continues its evolution as a forward-thinking, fast-acting company capable of providing quality products and services for its customers, it continues to remember and celebrate its roots as the first national network of communications ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:155,927
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
York County, South Carolina

York County, South Carolina

-
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
United States Postal Service

United States Postal 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 Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for York County, South Carolina in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

United States Postal Service has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - York County, South Carolina (X = Date, Y = Severity)

York County, South Carolina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - United States Postal Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

United States Postal 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...
York County, South Carolina

York County, South Carolina

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
YOR1092310091725
United States Postal Service

United States Postal Service

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP1776349784
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP853052025
🔒 Incident : Breach
USP001081724

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2