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

Comparison Overview

Concept Reply USConcept Reply US
VS
ComputacenterComputacenter
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

37000 Woodward Ave, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, US, 48304

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Concept Reply is a leader in IoT solutions. We support and advise our customers in Automotive, Manufacturing, Smart Infrastructure and beyond in all aspects of Internet of Things (IoT) and Cloud Computing. With a background in engineering and a passion for cutting-edge...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:28
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Computacenter

Computacenter

Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, GB, AL10 9TW

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.computacenter.com
759/1000Fair

Computacenter is a leading independent technology and services provider, trusted by large corporate and public sector organisations. We are a responsible business that believes in winning together for our people and our planet. We help our customers to Source, Tran...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19,537
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

-
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
Computacenter

Computacenter

-
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 Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Concept Reply US in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Computacenter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Concept Reply US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concept Reply US cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Computacenter 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...
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Computacenter

Computacenter

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
COM224219323

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9