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

Comparison Overview

G+H GroupG+H Group
VS
NCCNCC
G+H Group

G+H Group

Janderstr. 3, Mannheim, 68199, DE

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.guh-group.com
753/1000Fair

Die G+H Group ist einer der marktführenden Dienstleister im Gewerk Wärme-, Kälte-, Schall- und Brandschutz (WKSB) sowie in den Bereichen Sanierung und Tür- und Torservice. Unsere Philosophie ist eine dezentrale Struktur mit dem Fokus auf eigene Mitarbeiter und Mitarbeit...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:244
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
NCC

NCC

Herrjärva Torg 4, Stockholm, Solna, SE, 170 67

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.ncc.com
759/1000Fair

NCC is one of the leading construction companies in the Nordics. Based on its expertise in managing complex construction processes, NCC contributes to a positive impact of construction for its customers and society. NCC is one of the largest players in the Nordic cons...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:12,952
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
G+H Group

G+H 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
NCC

NCC

-
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 Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for G+H Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NCC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - G+H Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

G+H Group 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 - NCC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NCC 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...
G+H Group

G+H Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
NCC

NCC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1