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

Comparison Overview

Goldbelt Professional ServicesGoldbelt Professional Services
VS
City of AmsterdamCity of Amsterdam
Goldbelt Professional Services

Goldbelt Professional Services

860 Greenbrier Circle, Chesapeake, Virginia, 23320, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
759/1000Fair

We specialize in providing support and expert resources for an extensive range of Public Health missions. This includes scientific, technical, and administrative support ranging from junior staff to high-level Subject Matter Experts. We are research- and data-driven, wi...

NAICS:922
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Postbus 202, Amsterdam, 1000 AE, NL

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.amsterdam.nl
788/1000Fair

Working for Amsterdam means working for the most beautiful city in the world. Think of its rich history, the role Amsterdam plays internationally, and events such as Sail, Gay Pride and King’s Day. Of course everybody wants to visit Amsterdam, or work or live here. As ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:19,929
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Goldbelt Professional Services

Goldbelt Professional 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
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Goldbelt Professional Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for City of Amsterdam in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Goldbelt Professional Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Goldbelt Professional Services 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 - City of Amsterdam (X = Date, Y = Severity)

City of Amsterdam 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...
Goldbelt Professional Services

Goldbelt Professional Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
City of Amsterdam

City of Amsterdam

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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