Comparison Overview
Centerra Group

Centerra Group
13530 Dulles Technology Dr, Herndon, Virginia, 20171, US
Last Update: 13/01/2026
Centerra is a Constellis company. Please follow Constellis' LinkedIn page for news and information regarding any of its brands. Constellis is a leading provider of risk management and operational support services to government and commercial clients worldwide. Cons...

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços
Avenida Professor Francisco Morato 525, São Paulo, 05513-000, BR
Last Update: 01/04/2026
One of the largest companies in the professional services and security markets in Brazil. Formed by four branches, patrimonial security, personal security, electronic security and general services. Counting with around 16.000 employees, Gocil is present at several brazi...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Centerra Group







Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Centerra Group in 2026.
Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços in 2026.
Incident History - Centerra Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Centerra Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Centerra Group

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.
The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.
ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.