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

Comparison Overview

Global Brand PLC.Global Brand PLC.
VS
Tata Consultancy ServicesTata Consultancy Services
Global Brand PLC.

Global Brand PLC.

19/2, Dhaka, 1205, BD

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://globalbrand.com.bd/
755/1000Fair

Global Brand PLC. – Leading digital frontier in Bangladesh's IT distribution and enterprise solutions landscape since 1996. Since the establishment of GBPLC, we have been committed to making the world’s most renowned IT products and solutions easily accessible to our ra...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:842
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.tcs.com/
716/1000Moderate

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is the technology partner of choice for industry leading organizations worldwide. Since its inception in 1968, TCS has upheld the highest standards of innovation, engineering excellence, and customer service. It has set an aspiration to...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:717,299
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Global Brand PLC.

Global Brand PLC.

-
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
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

-
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 Global Brand PLC. in 2026.

Incidents

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

Tata Consultancy Services has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Global Brand PLC. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Brand PLC. 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 - Tata Consultancy Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Consultancy Services 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...
Global Brand PLC.

Global Brand PLC.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Consultancy Services

Tata Consultancy Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAT1786447303
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAT1786447105

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86098
SUMMARY

ntop nDPI versions before 6.0 contain a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the ndpi_json_string_escape function that writes beyond caller-supplied buffer boundaries. Attackers can trigger the overflow by supplying crafted network packet data including TLS SNI, HTTP headers, or DNS names that reach the vulnerable function, causing heap corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
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:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86097
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in param_set_default_file() and param_set_backup_file() functions that allows attackers to crash the autopilot process. Attackers can invoke 'param select' or 'param select-backup' commands with no path argument from any PX4 shell to trigger the crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86096
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in TemperatureCalibration::start() due to a race condition between task spawning and object deletion. Attackers can trigger the calibration process via shell commands to write to freed heap memory, corrupting unrelated objects or allocator metadata and destabilizing heap operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86095
SUMMARY

Unidata netcdf-c through 4.10.1 contains an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in NC4_HDF5_inq_attname() that copies HDF5 attribute names into a fixed 256-byte buffer without length validation. Attackers can craft HDF5 files with oversized attribute names to overflow the destination buffer, causing memory corruption and crashes when applications enumerate attribute names.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-48019
SUMMARY

Laravel is a web application framework. Prior to versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0, a CRLF injection vulnerability in Laravel's email validation, in combination with how Symfony Mailer and Symfony Mime handle certain character sequences, may allow an unauthenticated attacker to interfere with outbound email processing in applications that send mail to user-supplied addresses. This issue has been patched in versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2