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

Comparison Overview

Galapagos Federal SystemsGalapagos Federal Systems
VS
Grant Thornton (US)Grant Thornton (US)
Galapagos Federal Systems

Galapagos Federal Systems

112 Kulipu'u Street, Kihei, 96753, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.galapagosllc.com
756/1000Fair

Headquartered in Hawaii, Galapagos Federal Systems, LLC is an SBA-certified, NHO-owned 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business specializing in global information technology and offering professional solutions in IT design and installation, training, SETA, and advisory and ass...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:238
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

171 N. Clark Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL, US, 60601

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gt-us.co/3LukwpC
765/1000Fair

In the US, Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. G...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:11,632
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Galapagos Federal Systems

Galapagos Federal Systems

-
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
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

-
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 Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Galapagos Federal Systems in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grant Thornton (US) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Galapagos Federal Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Galapagos Federal Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Grant Thornton (US) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grant Thornton (US) 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...
Galapagos Federal Systems

Galapagos Federal Systems

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GITGAL1770201332
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRA519072625

FAQ

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