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

Comparison Overview

DanCenter A/SDanCenter A/S
VS
MSC CruisesMSC Cruises
DanCenter A/S

DanCenter A/S

Lyngbyvej 20, København Ø., undefined, 2100, DK

Last Update: 26/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dancenter.dk
759/1000Fair

DanCenter er en af de største formidlere af ferieboliger i Danmark At være ferieboligformidler vil sige, at vi sørger for at etablere kontakt mellem de udlejere af ferieboliger, som vi har en aftale med, og interesserede lejere til den pågældende feriebolig. Vi ejer ...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:192
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MSC Cruises

MSC Cruises

Avenue Eugene Pittard, Geneva, 1206, CH

Last Update: 02/04/2026

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

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, MSC Cruises is the world’s third largest cruise lines and the market leader in Europe, South America, the Middle East and Southern Africa, with a strong and growing presence in North America and the Far East. The MSC Cruises fleet ...

NAICS:5615
NAICS Definition:Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
Employees:18,545
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DanCenter A/S

DanCenter A/S

-
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
MSC Cruises

MSC Cruises

-
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 Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DanCenter A/S in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MSC Cruises in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DanCenter A/S (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DanCenter A/S 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 - MSC Cruises (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MSC Cruises 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...
DanCenter A/S

DanCenter A/S

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MSC Cruises

MSC Cruises

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56082
SUMMARY

Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
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:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56081
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56080
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-56079
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56073
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9