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

Comparison Overview

Atos CybersecurityAtos Cybersecurity
VS
General Dynamics Information TechnologyGeneral Dynamics Information Technology
Atos Cybersecurity

Atos Cybersecurity

80, Quai Voltaire, Bezons, Île-de-France, FR, 95877

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

As everything gets digital and building fortresses is no longer effective, building a smart and agile cybersecurity has never been more needed. Atos Cybersecurity mission is to help you secure your major transformations, from your move-to-cloud to your application moder...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

Falls Church, Virginia, US, 22042

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gdit.com
786/1000Fair

GDIT is a global technology and professional services company that delivers solutions, technology and mission services to every major agency across the U.S. government, defense and intelligence community. Our 30,000 experts extract the power of technology to create imm...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:26,279
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Atos Cybersecurity

Atos Cybersecurity

-
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
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

-
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 Atos Cybersecurity in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for General Dynamics Information Technology in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Atos Cybersecurity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atos Cybersecurity 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 - General Dynamics Information Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Dynamics Information Technology 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...
Atos Cybersecurity

Atos Cybersecurity

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GDI1765641604

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9