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

Comparison Overview

Econocom BelgiumEconocom Belgium
VS
Gainwell TechnologiesGainwell Technologies
Econocom Belgium

Econocom Belgium

Leuvensesteenweg 510 B80, Zaventem, 1930, BE

Last Update: 31/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.econocom.be
752/1000Fair

Econocom Group, founded 50 years ago, has been a pioneer in supporting businesses in their digital transformation. Econocom supplies, finances and provides managed services for workplace, audiovisual and infrastructures. This includes equipment purchasing, configurati...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:252
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

United States, US

Last Update: 22/08/2026

View Profile
586/1000Very Poor

The people who build careers at Gainwell Technologies share one thing: they want their work to matter. Here, it does. We're the essential ingredient that makes Medicaid work. For more than 50 years, we've combined our sweeping scale and technology to turn complex polic...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:11,047
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Econocom Belgium

Econocom Belgium

-
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
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Econocom Belgium in 2026.

Incidents

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

Gainwell Technologies has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Econocom Belgium (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Econocom Belgium 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 - Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gainwell Technologies 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...
Econocom Belgium

Econocom Belgium

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STAGAI1787430483
🔒 Incident : Breach
HARGAISOC1779481525
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1992519092625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA