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

Comparison Overview

Digitales GesundheitswesenDigitales Gesundheitswesen
VS
Purpose Brands, LLCPurpose Brands, LLC
Digitales Gesundheitswesen

Digitales Gesundheitswesen

Rennweg 97-99, Wien, 1030, AT

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile

T-Systems'​ ICT-Lösungen können helfen die Effizienz des Gesundheitssystems zu steigern und damit wachsende Kosten durch eine alternde Gesellschaft und den medizinischen Fortschritt zu bewältigen.

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:64
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

111 Weir Drive, Woodbury, 55125, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://purposebrands.com/
743/1000Moderate

Purpose Brands, LLC provides fitness, nutrition and wellness support and services to more than 7,000 communities and millions of people around the world. We own and operate the world’s largest and most trusted portfolio of fitness, health and wellness franchise brand...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:29,223
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Digitales Gesundheitswesen

Digitales Gesundheitswesen

-
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
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Digitales Gesundheitswesen in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Purpose Brands, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Digitales Gesundheitswesen (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Digitales Gesundheitswesen cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Purpose Brands, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Purpose Brands, LLC 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...
Digitales Gesundheitswesen

Digitales Gesundheitswesen

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Purpose Brands, LLC

Purpose Brands, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PUR3203232111425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
2.8