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

Comparison Overview

Bundesamt für Justiz BJBundesamt für Justiz BJ
VS
Tata GroupTata Group
Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

Bundesrain, Bern, Bern, 3003, CH

Last Update: 07/12/2025

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

Das BJ nimmt vielfältige Aufgaben und Funktionen in allen Bereichen des Rechts wahr: Als "Rechtliches Gewissen" der Bundesverwaltung begleitet es sämtliche Rechtsetzungsprojekte auf Stufe Bund. So trägt das BJ dazu bei, dass ein schweizerisches Gesetz zum Beispiel die...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:162
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: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tata.com
782/1000Fair

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
Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

-
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 Bundesamt für Justiz BJ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

Tata Group has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Bundesamt für Justiz BJ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bundesamt für Justiz BJ cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

Bundesamt für Justiz BJ

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Group

Tata Group

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8