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

Comparison Overview

GuardsmarkGuardsmark
VS
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e ServiçosGocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços
Guardsmark

Guardsmark

10 Rockefeller Plaza, 12th Floor, New York, NY, 10020-1903, US

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.guardsmark.com
764/1000Fair

Guardsmark, LLC provides security services. It offers security services, including uniformed officers and individualized protection of client assets; investigations, such as undercover agents; consulting, including safety and security program surveys; and background scr...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:1,366
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Avenida Professor Francisco Morato 525, São Paulo, 05513-000, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gocil.com.br
782/1000Fair

One of the largest companies in the professional services and security markets in Brazil. Formed by four branches, patrimonial security, personal security, electronic security and general services. Counting with around 16.000 employees, Gocil is present at several brazi...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:10,859
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Guardsmark

Guardsmark

-
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
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

-
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 Guardsmark in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Guardsmark (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Guardsmark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços 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...
Guardsmark

Guardsmark

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA