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

Comparison Overview

gastrodat GmbHgastrodat GmbH
VS
WoltWolt
gastrodat GmbH

gastrodat GmbH

Karolingerstraße 3/1, Salzburg, 5020, AT

Last Update: 16/04/2026

View Profile
639/1000Poor

Simplify your hotel management and relieve your staff with our booking software. Daily recurring tasks determine the image of every tourist accommodation business. The all-in-one hotel software from gastrodat provides everything from a single source: * Hotel software: ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:19
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Wolt

Wolt

Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 21, Helsinki, Uusimaa, FI, 00100

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://careers.wolt.com/en
779/1000Fair

Wolt is a Helsinki-based technology company with a mission to bring joy, simplicity and earnings to the neighborhoods of the world. Wolt develops a local commerce platform that connects people looking to order food, groceries, and other goods with people interested in s...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,398
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
gastrodat GmbH

gastrodat GmbH

-
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
Wolt

Wolt

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

gastrodat GmbH has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wolt in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - gastrodat GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

gastrodat GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Wolt (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Wolt 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...
gastrodat GmbH

gastrodat GmbH

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHEGAS1776335039
Wolt

Wolt

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8