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

Comparison Overview

Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCPFederal Office for Civil Protection FOCP
VS
Tata GroupTata Group
Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

Guisanplatz , Bern, undefined, 3003, CH

Last Update: 22/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.babs.admin.ch
745/1000Moderate

The Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP) is Switzerland's national centre of expertise on civil protection matters. It lays the groundwork for and coordinates efforts to protect the population in the event of a disaster or emergency. Its core responsibilities are ...

NAICS:921
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:197
Subsidiaries:68
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Group

Tata Group

Bombay House, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tata.com
780/1000Fair

Founded by Jamsetji Tata in 1868, the Tata group is a global enterprise headquartered in India. The group operates in more than 100 countries across six continents with a mission 'To improve the quality of life of the communities we serve globally, through long-term sta...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:1,017,747
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

-
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
Tata Group

Tata Group

-
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 Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Group has 92.31% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP 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 - Tata Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Group 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...
Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

Federal Office for Civil Protection FOCP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Group

Tata Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TATRED1782606562
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1773923106
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MAR1193411110425

FAQ

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