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

Comparison Overview

FJC Security Services, Inc.FJC Security Services, Inc.
VS
Securitas GroupSecuritas Group
FJC Security Services, Inc.

FJC Security Services, Inc.

275 Jericho Turnpike, Floral Park, NY, 11001, US

Last Update: 29/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fjcsecurity.com/
763/1000Fair

FJC Security Services offers the best security solutions throughout the entire United States. With capabilities that include the integration of our uniformed security personnel with leading-edge technologies and strategic consulting services, we provide the most cost-ef...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:1,193
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Securitas Group

Securitas Group

Lindhagensplan 70, Stockholm, 102 28 , SE

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.securitas.com
749/1000Moderate

This is the official LinkedIn page of the Securitas Group. Securitas is a world-leading safety and security solutions partner that helps make your world a safer place. Almost nine decades of deep experience means we see what others miss. By leveraging technology in pa...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:10,934
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FJC Security Services, Inc.

FJC Security Services, Inc.

-
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
Securitas Group

Securitas Group

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FJC Security Services, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Securitas Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FJC Security Services, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FJC Security Services, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Securitas Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Securitas Group 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...
FJC Security Services, Inc.

FJC Security Services, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Securitas Group

Securitas Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SEC145311522

FAQ

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