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

Comparison Overview

Gocil Rio de JaneiroGocil Rio de Janeiro
VS
G4SG4S
Gocil Rio de Janeiro

Gocil Rio de Janeiro

N/A

Last Update: 19/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gocil.com.br
755/1000Fair

A Gocil Segurança e Serviços é uma empresa especializada em soluções para Segurança Empresarial, Segurança Pessoal, Segurança Eletrônica e Serviços atuando desde 2008 no estado do Rio de Janeiro.

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
G4S

G4S

6th Floor, London, SW1H 0DB, GB

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.g4s.com
823/1000Good

G4S is a leading security and facility services company that provides proactive security services and cutting-edge smart technology to deliver tailored, integrated security solutions that allow clients to focus on their core business. Through a global workforce of appro...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:114,593
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gocil Rio de Janeiro

Gocil Rio de Janeiro

-
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
G4S

G4S

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gocil Rio de Janeiro in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for G4S in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gocil Rio de Janeiro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gocil Rio de Janeiro 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 - G4S (X = Date, Y = Severity)

G4S 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...
Gocil Rio de Janeiro

Gocil Rio de Janeiro

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
G4S

G4S

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro company and G4S company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro and G4S, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro and G4S, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Gocil Rio de Janeiro or G4S ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Gocil Rio de Janeiro or G4S ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro and G4S, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Gocil Rio de Janeiro and G4S, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA