Comparison Overview
ChipSoft Nederland

ChipSoft Nederland
Orlyplein 10, Amsterdam, 1043 DP, NL
Last Update: 23/06/2026
Better care together ChipSoft develops cutting-edge software that supports healthcare professionals –from medical specialists to admin and executives- in providing the best quality of care in the most efficient way. Our mission is to contribute to greater patient safet...

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, 94043, US
Last Update: 29/07/2026
A problem isn't truly solved until it's solved for all. Googlers build products that help create opportunities for everyone, whether down the street or across the globe. Bring your insight, imagination and a healthy disregard for the impossible. Bring everything that ma...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

ChipSoft Nederland













Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
ChipSoft Nederland has 88.68% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Google has 4471.43% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - ChipSoft Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)
ChipSoft Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Google (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Google cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

ChipSoft Nederland

FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.
undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.
undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.
kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in check_availability.php via the parameters emailid and email.
- https://github.com/um-dsp/TaintRadar/blob/main/sql_injection_cves/hospitalmanagementsystemproject/20250811-hospital-management-system-check_availability.php-email-sqli/20250811-hospital-management-system-check_availability.php-email-sqli.md
- https://github.com/um-dsp/TaintRadar/blob/main/sql_injection_cves/hospitalmanagementsystemproject/20250811-hospital-management-system-check_availability.php-emailid-sqli/20250811-hospital-management-system-check_availability.php-emailid-sqli.md
kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.