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

Comparison Overview

CareCloudCareCloud
VS
GFT TechnologiesGFT Technologies
CareCloud

CareCloud

7 Clyde Road, Somerset, 08873, US

Last Update: 20/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.carecloud.com
538/1000Critical

CareCloud, Inc., formerly MTBC, is a leading healthcare technology company with a suite of unified, technology-enabled solutions for healthcare organizations, medical practices, and health systems. In today’s challenging healthcare landscape, healthcare organization...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:1,571
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Schelmenwasenstr. 34, Stuttgart, 70567, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gft.com
751/1000Fair

GFT Technologies is an AI-centric global digital transformation company. We design advanced data and AI transformation solutions, modernize technology architectures and develop next-generation core systems for industry leaders in Banking, Insurance, Manufacturing and Ro...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:13,147
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CareCloud

CareCloud

-
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
GFT Technologies

GFT 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)

CareCloud has 101.34% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for GFT Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CareCloud (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CareCloud cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

GFT Technologies 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...
CareCloud

CareCloud

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1774881300
🔒 Incident : Breach
CAR1787235939
🔒 Incident : Breach
CARTRI1787150196
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82592
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in D-Link DIR-825M 1.1.8. This affects the function sub_46725C of the file /boafrm/formDiskFormat of the component Disk Formatting Handler Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument partition results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-82591
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Open Asset Import Library Assimp up to 6.0.2. The impacted element is the function MD5Importer::MakeDataUnique of the file code/AssetLib/MD5/MD5Loader.cpp. The manipulation of the argument iNewIndex leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The identifier of the patch is bf9dabb617c46e5133dac65cca6bff177917afcb. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-82590
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. The affected element is the function smf_nudm_sdm_handle_get of the file src/smf/nudm-handler.c of the component SMF. Executing a manipulation of the argument preemptCap can lead to reachable assertion. The attack may be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is sufficient to fix this issue. This patch is called 4554405f29bffd7562abedbee63484825bd90cd5. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82589
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. Impacted is the function amf_namf_comm_handle_n1_n2_message_transfer of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component N1-N2 Message Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument N1N2MessageTransferReqData.n2InfoContainer.smInfo.n2InfoContent.ngapIeType results in denial of service. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is recommended to address this issue. The patch is named abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82588
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component Transfer Endpoint. Such manipulation leads to null pointer dereference. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is capable of addressing this issue. The name of the patch is abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8