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

Comparison Overview

Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango TechnologiesCyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies
VS
eClerxeClerx
Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies

Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies

6 Brewery Close, Barker Business Park, Ripon, HG4 5NL, GB

Last Update: 05/12/2025

View Profile
754/1000Fair

We continue to innovate and meet market demands, which is why our Complete Cyber Security service has been developed to maximize the security of our client’s IT systems. We prevent and resolve cyber issues for clients throughout the UK and beyond. We have a range of Cyb...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
eClerx

eClerx

29 Bank Street, Fort, 1st Floor, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 023

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.eclerx.com
758/1000Fair

eClerx is a productized services company, bringing together people, technology and domain expertise to amplify business results. Our mission is to set the benchmark for client service and success in our industry. Our vision is to be the innovation partner of choice for ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:19,162
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies

Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango 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
eClerx

eClerx

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for eClerx in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

eClerx 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...
Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies

Cyber Security Services from Fresh Mango Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
eClerx

eClerx

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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