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

Comparison Overview

Gainwell TechnologiesGainwell Technologies
VS
FPT SoftwareFPT Software
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
FPT Software

FPT Software

FPT Bld., Duy Tan Str., Hanoi, 10xxx15xx, VN

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.fptsoftware.com
790/1000Fair

FPT Software, a subsidiary of FPT Corporation, is a global technology and IT services provider headquartered in Vietnam, with USD 1.22 billion in revenue (2024) and over 33,000 employees in 30 countries. Embracing an AI-first approach, FPT Software enables breakthroug...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:31,054
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
FPT Software

FPT Software

-
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)

Gainwell Technologies has 36.05% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for FPT Software in 2026.

Incidents

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

Incident History - FPT Software (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FPT Software 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...
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

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

FPT Software

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA