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

Comparison Overview

GenesisGenesis
VS
UGLUGL
Genesis

Genesis

One St Paul's Churchyard, None, London, London, GB, EC4M 8AP

Last Update: 28/01/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Genesis is a market-leading advisory company focused on providing high-value technical and advisory services for the energy industry. As trusted advisors committed to a sustainable future, we have extensive experience working in true partnership with our clients while ...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:475
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
UGL

UGL

Level 8, 40 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, AU, 2060

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ugllimited.com
776/1000Fair

UGL is CIMIC Group's specialist end-to-end engineering, services and operations provider. We have a rich history dating back to 1899 and since then we have grown to be a market leader in many of the sectors in which we operate. Working with some of the most important c...

NAICS:54139
NAICS Definition:Engineering Services
Employees:11,667
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Genesis

Genesis

-
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
UGL

UGL

-
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 Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Genesis in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Engineering Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UGL in 2026.

Incidents

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

Genesis cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

UGL 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...
Genesis

Genesis

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
UGL

UGL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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