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

Comparison Overview

Cloud Secure GroupCloud Secure Group
VS
AtosAtos
Cloud Secure Group

Cloud Secure Group

Pride Icon, Office #806 Thite Nagar, Kharadi, Pune, 411014, IN

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
641/1000Poor

Cloud Secure Group is a technology services brand powered by Devbay Technologies, specializing in cloud, security, and collaboration solutions. We work as an extension of internal IT teams, delivering services that are structured, governed, and accountable for long-term...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:5
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Atos

Atos

80 Quai Voltaire, 95877 Bezons, FR

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.atos.net
751/1000Fair

Atos Group is a global leader in digital transformation with c. 67,000 employees and annual revenue of c. €10 billion, operating in 61 countries under two brands — Atos for services and Eviden for products. European number one in cybersecurity, cloud and high performanc...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:87,005
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cloud Secure Group

Cloud Secure 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
Atos

Atos

-
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)

Cloud Secure Group has 31.97% fewer 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 Atos in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cloud Secure Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cloud Secure Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Atos 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...
Cloud Secure Group

Cloud Secure Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CLO1770851034
Atos

Atos

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA