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

Comparison Overview

General Dynamics Information TechnologyGeneral Dynamics Information Technology
VS
Ricoh USA, Inc.Ricoh USA, Inc.
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

Falls Church, Virginia, US, 22042

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gdit.com
786/1000Fair

GDIT is a global technology and professional services company that delivers solutions, technology and mission services to every major agency across the U.S. government, defense and intelligence community. Our 30,000 experts extract the power of technology to create imm...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:26,279
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, Inc.

300 Eagleview Blvd, Exton, 19341, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ricoh-usa.com/
777/1000Fair

At Ricoh, we bring people, processes, and technology together to make information work for you. We unlock the power of information so organizations can unlock the full potential of their people. We're a leader in information management and digital services, creating com...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18,441
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

-
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
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for General Dynamics Information Technology in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Ricoh USA, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - General Dynamics Information Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

General Dynamics Information Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ricoh USA, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ricoh USA, Inc. 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...
General Dynamics Information Technology

General Dynamics Information Technology

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GDI1765641604
Ricoh USA, Inc.

Ricoh USA, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA