Comparison Overview

E Gambling

VS

Georgia Lottery Corporation

E Gambling

Geert Grootestraat 1, Deventer, Overijssel, NL, 7411 GS
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

E Gambling is opgericht door Robbie van Essen en Dennis Stegeman in 2009 met als doel meer ervaring op te doen als online marketeer. Deze ervaringen kunnen wij goed toepassen op de dagelijkse werkzaamheden van onze werkgevers. Echter in de loop der tijd is dit bedrijf enorm gegroeid. E Gambling richt zich met name op affiliate werkzaamheden binnen de casino branche. Momenteel bezit E Gambling meer dan 100 websites. www.blackjackmetgeld.com, www.casinometechtgeld.com en www.onlinehollandcasino.nl zijn voorbeelden van sites die onder E Gambling vallen. De werkzaamheden van E Gambling zijn hoofdzakelijk het oprichten/starten van nieuwe websites waarbij de focus ligt op online casino's, alsmede deze site's SEO technisch goed in te richten en actief bezig te zijn met linkbuilding.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 0
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Georgia Lottery Corporation

250 Williams St., Ste. 3000, Atlanta, GA, 30303, US
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

The Georgia Lottery was created in November 1992 by the people of Georgia to enhance educational funding. The Lottery for Education Act created the Georgia Lottery Corporation (GLC) to oversee and operate the lottery. The Georgia Lottery's mission is to responsibly maximize revenues for the educational programs we fund.

NAICS: 7132
NAICS Definition: Gambling Industries
Employees: 321
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/e-gambling.jpeg
E Gambling
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-lottery-corporation.jpeg
Georgia Lottery Corporation
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
E Gambling
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Georgia Lottery Corporation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for E Gambling in 2025.

Incidents vs Gambling Facilities and Casinos Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Georgia Lottery Corporation in 2025.

Incident History — E Gambling (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E Gambling cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Georgia Lottery Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Georgia Lottery Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/e-gambling.jpeg
E Gambling
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/georgia-lottery-corporation.jpeg
Georgia Lottery Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Georgia Lottery Corporation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to E Gambling company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Georgia Lottery Corporation company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to E Gambling company.

In the current year, Georgia Lottery Corporation company and E Gambling company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Georgia Lottery Corporation company nor E Gambling company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Georgia Lottery Corporation company nor E Gambling company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Georgia Lottery Corporation company nor E Gambling company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither E Gambling company nor Georgia Lottery Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither E Gambling company nor Georgia Lottery Corporation company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Georgia Lottery Corporation company employs more people globally than E Gambling company, reflecting its scale as a Gambling Facilities and Casinos.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither E Gambling nor Georgia Lottery Corporation holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H