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

Comparison Overview

Amsterdam UMC FoundationAmsterdam UMC Foundation
VS
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
Amsterdam UMC Foundation

Amsterdam UMC Foundation

Postbus 7057, Amsterdam, undefined, 1007 MB, NL

Last Update: 15/02/2026

View Profile

Deze stichting werft financiële middelen voor veelbelovend innovatief wetenschappelijk onderzoek binnen Amsterdam UMC. Wij financieren onderzoek naar de zorg van morgen. Dit doen wij dankzij de steun van donateurs. Helpt u mee?

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Rte de Ferney 140, 1202 Genève, Geneva, GE, CH, 1202

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.msf.org
806/1000Good

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international, independent, medical humanitarian organisation working to provide medical assistance to people affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or exclusion from healthcare. Since our founding in 1971, we’ve grown to a gl...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:28,997
Subsidiaries:35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Amsterdam UMC Foundation

Amsterdam UMC Foundation

-
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
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amsterdam UMC Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Amsterdam UMC Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amsterdam UMC Foundation 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 - Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Amsterdam UMC Foundation

Amsterdam UMC Foundation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3