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

Comparison Overview

GMR Hyderabad Air CargoGMR Hyderabad Air Cargo
VS
CMA CGMCMA CGM
GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

RGI Airport, Shamshabad , Hyderabad, Telangana, 500108, IN

Last Update: 24/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gmrhydcargo.in/
751/1000Fair

GMR Air Cargo and Aerospace Engineering Ltd. (GACAEL) is 100% subsidiary of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GHIAL). GACAEL provides a full scope of cargo handling services encompassing both physical handling as well as documentation services. Other services...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:120
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

4, Quai d'arenc, Marseille, 13002, FR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cma-cgm.com
766/1000Fair

The CMA CGM Group is a global player in sea, land, air and logistics solutions, true to its corporate Purpose, "We imagine better ways to serve a world in motion". Present in 177 countries, it employs 160,000 people, of which nearly 6,000 in Marseilles where its head o...

NAICS:47
NAICS Definition:Transportation and Warehousing
Employees:30,339
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

-
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
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

-
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 Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CMA CGM in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo 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 - CMA CGM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CMA CGM 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...
GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CMA CGM

CMA CGM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA330092125
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CMA642092025
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CMA840092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1