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

Comparison Overview

Generalsekretariat GS-EJPDGeneralsekretariat GS-EJPD
VS
Tata GroupTata Group
Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

Bundeshaus West, Bern, 3003, CH

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
744/1000Moderate

Im GS-EJPD – der Stabstelle von Departementsvorsteher Beat Jans – schaffen wir optimale Voraussetzungen, die es dem Bundesrat erlauben, seine Aufgaben als Regierungsmitglied gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit zu erfüllen. Gut 150 Mitarbeitende sorgen unter der Co-Leitung von ...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:94
Subsidiaries:68
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Group

Tata Group

Bombay House, Mumbai, 400001, IN

Last Update: 28/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tata.com
780/1000Fair

Founded by Jamsetji Tata in 1868, the Tata group is a global enterprise headquartered in India. The group operates in more than 100 countries across six continents with a mission 'To improve the quality of life of the communities we serve globally, through long-term sta...

NAICS:92111
NAICS Definition:Executive Offices
Employees:1,017,747
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

-
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 Group

Tata Group

-
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 Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Executive Offices Industry Avg (This Year)

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

Incidents

Incident History - Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD 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 Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Group 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...
Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

Generalsekretariat GS-EJPD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Group

Tata Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TATRED1782606562
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1773923106
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MAR1193411110425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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