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

Google Cloud Official Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

satyamsolutions.com

Welcome to Satyam Solutions having 15+ years of experience cloud and data centre services! Our expertise in cloud computing and data centre management ensures that your business stays ahead in todays fast-paced digital landscape. catering to 12k+ customers & 6.5k Tally Licence Host in our datacenter. We provide AWS Cloud, Google Cloud, Azure Cloud, Datacentre Service, App Development and business automation solutions.


GCO A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

GCO
Company Information
Website:http://www.satyamsolutions.com
Employees number:9
Number of followers:348
NAICS:484
Industry Type:Truck Transportation
Homepage:satyamsolutions.com
GCO Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 700 and 749
logo
GCOTruck Transportation
Updated:
03/08/2026
744/1000
Moderate
Ba
AaaAaABaaBaBCaaCaC
Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
Insurance prefers TPRM score to calculate premium
GCO Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
logo
GCOTruck Transportation
•••
Score locked
Instant access to detailed risk factors
Vulnerabilities
Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
Findings

GCO
GCOModerate
Current Score
744Ba (MODERATE)
01000
2 incidents
-5 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
AUGUST 2026
749Before Incident
Vulnerability
03 Aug 2026GCO
eBay and Google: Malware Can Steal Your Google Synced Passkey Without Asking for Your Password or Fingerprint

Google Passkey Security Flaws Expose Accounts to Silent Hijacking

744After Incident
HIGH-5
GOOEBA1785781429
Google Passkey Security Flaws Expose Accounts to Silent Hijacking New research from Unit 42 reveals critical vulnerabilities in Google’s Cloud Authenticator, allowing malware on compromised Windows devices to hijack synced passkeys and bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA) without user interaction. The findings, part of a three-part series on passkey security, highlight flaws in device trust, onboarding, and recovery mechanisms that undermine the protections passkeys were designed to provide. Passkeys, which replace passwords with public-key cryptography, are vulnerable due to Chrome’s handling of the "identity key" a hardware-backed credential meant to verify device possession. Instead of being permanently secured in the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), the key is generated as an exportable blob, enabling malware to extract and use it via Windows cryptography APIs to authenticate as the victim. This "Pass-ta-key" attack allows silent logins without triggering biometric or PIN prompts. A more severe variant, the "Silver Pass-ta-key" attack, exploits Chrome’s re-onboarding process. By corrupting local passkey state files, attackers force the browser to accept a new, attacker-controlled verification key, granting persistent access even to MFA-protected accounts. The most damaging technique, the "Golden Pass-ta-key" attack, targets the security domain secret (SDS), a 32-byte master key encrypting all synced passkeys. Researchers found this key exposed in Chrome’s logs and memory during recovery, allowing attackers to decrypt past and future passkeys creating undetectable, long-term access since Google lacks a mechanism to rotate the SDS. The vulnerabilities stem from implementation gaps rather than flaws in passkey cryptography itself, particularly over-reliance on client device trust and inconsistent validation by service providers. Some platforms, including eBay, have patched verification gaps following responsible disclosure. Mitigation strategies include enforcing user verification checks, validating device key attestation, restricting local access to credential stores, and monitoring for unusual onboarding or recovery triggers.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability Exploitation
IMPACT
Data Compromised: Synced passkeys (public-key credentials)Systems Affected: Google Cloud Authenticator (Chrome on Windows)Operational Impact: Bypass of multi-factor authentication (MFA)Brand Reputation Impact: Undermines trust in passkey securityIdentity Theft Risk: High (silent account hijacking)
DATA BREACH
Type Of Data Compromised: Passkeys (public-key credentials)Sensitivity Of Data: High (authentication credentials)Data Encryption: Weak (exportable identity key, exposed SDS)
JULY 2026
749Before Incident
JUNE 2026
749Before Incident
MAY 2026
749Before Incident
APRIL 2026
749Before Incident
MARCH 2026
749Before Incident
FEBRUARY 2026
748Before Incident
JANUARY 2026
748Before Incident
DECEMBER 2025
747Before Incident
Vulnerability
05 Dec 2025GCO
Resilient AI-enabled Cybersecurity and Trustworthiness (ReACT) Lab: Chinese Hackers Have Started Exploiting the Newly Disclosed React2Shell Vulnerability

Exploitation of React Server Components (RSC) Vulnerability (CVE-2025-55182) by China-Linked Threat Actors

748After Incident
CRITICAL-1
REA1764950234
Two hacking groups with ties to China have been observed weaponizing the newly disclosed security flaw in React Server Components (RSC) within hours of it becoming public knowledge. The vulnerability in question is CVE-2025-55182 (CVSS score: 10.0), aka React2Shell, which allows unauthenticated remote code execution. It has been addressed in React versions 19.0.1, 19.1.2, and 19.2.1. According to a new report shared by Amazon Web Services (AWS), two China-linked threat actors known as Earth Lamia and Jackpot Panda have been observed attempting to exploit the maximum-severity security flaw. "Our analysis of exploitation attempts in AWS MadPot honeypot infrastructure has identified exploitation activity from IP addresses and infrastructure historically linked to known China state-nexus threat actors," CJ Moses, CISO of Amazon Integrated Security, said in a report shared with The Hacker News. Specifically, the tech giant said it identified infrastructure associated with Earth Lamia, a China-nexus group that was attributed to attacks exploiting a critical SAP NetWeaver flaw (CVE-2025-31324) earlier this year. The hacking crew has targeted sectors across financial services, logistics, retail, IT companies, universities, and government organizations across Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. The attack efforts have also originated from infrastructure related to another China-nexus cyber threat actor known as Jackpot Panda, which has primarily singled out entit
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Remote Code Execution (RCE)
MOTIVATION
State-nexus cyber espionage/attack
IMPACT
Systems Affected: React Server Components (RSC)
NOVEMBER 2025
747Before Incident
OCTOBER 2025
747Before Incident
SEPTEMBER 2025
747Before Incident

Frequently Asked Questions

?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for GCO ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in June 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in October 2025 ?
?
What was GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2025 ?
?
What is the average per-incident point impact on GCO's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ?
?
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with GCO ?
?
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?
?
Where can I view GCO's profile page on Rankiteo ?
?
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?