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

Comparison Overview

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.
VS
Great Clips Inc.Great Clips Inc.
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

Dopraváků 749/3, 184 00 Praha 8, CZ

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
772/1000Fair

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s. je asistenční společnost, založena v roce 2004, která zajišťuje široké spektrum služeb v České republice, služby pro motoristy po celé Evropě a zdravotní asistenci po celém světě. Poskytuje komplexní asistenční služby a pečuje o své klienty v nouz...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:82
Subsidiaries:55
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips Inc.

4400 W. 78th St., Minneapolis, 55435, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://jobs.greatclips.com/
789/1000Fair

Established in Minneapolis in 1982, Great Clips has grown to be the world's largest and fastest growing salon brand. There are more than 4,400 salons throughout the United States and Canada -- all of them owned by franchisees. Visit us at www.greatclips.com Employment ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:12,370
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

-
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
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips 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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Great Clips Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s. 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 - Great Clips Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Clips 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...
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

GLOBAL ASSISTANCE a.s.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Great Clips Inc.

Great Clips Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2