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

Comparison Overview

ALTEN MexicoALTEN Mexico
VS
Gainwell TechnologiesGainwell Technologies
ALTEN Mexico

ALTEN Mexico

undefined, Querétaro, Querétaro, 76100, MX

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

We are ALTEN Mexico, an engineering company that provides specialized solutions for engineering, technology and product development projects. Our team of more than 500 people work across industries including: Automotive, Energy, Aeronautics, Banking & insurance, Telecom...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:377
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

United States, US

Last Update: 22/05/2026

View Profile
649/1000Poor

For 50 years, our nation’s federal Medicaid program has worked to improve the health, safety and well-being of America’s most vulnerable populations: low-income families, women and children, seniors, and those with disabilities. With positive health and cost outcomes th...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,397
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ALTEN Mexico

ALTEN 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
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ALTEN Mexico in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Gainwell Technologies has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ALTEN Mexico (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ALTEN Mexico cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gainwell Technologies 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...
ALTEN Mexico

ALTEN Mexico

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HARGAISOC1779481525
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1992519092625
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI115225522

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1