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

Comparison Overview

FINN.no – mulighetenes markedFINN.no – mulighetenes marked
VS
NetEaseNetEase
FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

Grensen 5-7, Postboks 747 Sentrum, Oslo, Norway, NO, 0106

Last Update: 05/07/2026

View Profile
770/1000Fair

Nesten alle i Norge prøvd FINN.no 💙 Hvert år tilbringer hver nordmann i snitt 30 timer på tjenesten vår, og til sammen surfer brukerne våre gjennom mer enn 15 milliarder sider. Snakk om engasjert gjeng! 😻 En jobb i FINN sikrer deg mange gode historier på fest. Det er ...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:430
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
NetEase

NetEase

No.599 Wangshang Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, 310052, CN

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://ir.netease.com/
832/1000Good

As a leading internet technology company based in China, NetEase, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTES and HKEX:9999, "NetEase") provides premium online services centered around content creation. With extensive offerings across its expanding gaming ecosystem, NetEase develops and operat...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,962
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

-
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
NetEase

NetEase

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FINN.no – mulighetenes marked in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NetEase in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FINN.no – mulighetenes marked (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FINN.no – mulighetenes marked 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 - NetEase (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NetEase 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...
FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

FINN.no – mulighetenes marked

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
NetEase

NetEase

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked company and NetEase company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked and NetEase, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked and NetEase, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - FINN.no – mulighetenes marked or NetEase ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - FINN.no – mulighetenes marked or NetEase ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked and NetEase, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between FINN.no – mulighetenes marked and NetEase, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2