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

Comparison Overview

Flock SafetyFlock Safety
VS
TÜV Rheinland GroupTÜV Rheinland Group
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
407/1000Critical

Flock Safety is the leading public safety platform designed to help communities prevent and reduce crime, not just respond to it. We partner with cities, law enforcement agencies, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods to deliver real-time, objective intelligence that h...

NAICS:92219
NAICS Definition:Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
Employees:1,454
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2
TÜV Rheinland Group

TÜV Rheinland Group

Am Grauen Stein, Cologne, 51105, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.tuv.com/impressum
726/1000Moderate

Neutral, independent third party For more than 150 years, TÜV Rheinland has stood for ensuring quality, safety, and efficiency in conjunction with people, the environment, and technology. As a neutral, independent third party, we test, accompany, develop, promote and ...

NAICS:92219
NAICS Definition:Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
Employees:17,587
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

-
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
TÜV Rheinland Group

TÜV Rheinland 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 Public Safety Industry Avg (This Year)

Flock Safety has 108.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Public Safety Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TÜV Rheinland Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Flock Safety (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Flock Safety cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

TÜV Rheinland 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...
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FLO1782132974
🔒 Incident : Breach
FLOVEN1772764366
🔒 Incident : Breach
CITFLO1772001588
TÜV Rheinland Group

TÜV Rheinland Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TUV1765188618

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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