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

Comparison Overview

Hållbara MalmöHållbara Malmö
VS
Workingfor.beWorkingfor.be
Hållbara Malmö

Hållbara Malmö

Bergsgatan 17, Malmö, 205 80, SE

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.malmo.se/miljo
762/1000Fair

Det är bara med gemensamma krafter vi kan ställa om för Malmö och planeten! Här lyfter vi stora och små exempel på hur Malmö stad arbetar för att nå våra klimat- och miljömål till år 2030. Den här sidan drivs av miljöförvaltningen i Malmö stad med syfte att berätta om...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Simon Bolivarlaan 30, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.workingfor.be
782/1000Fair

Workingfor.be is the job platform of the federal administration. Here, you will find a wide variety of jobs in different fields of profession. Every day thousands of our employees help build tomorrow's society. When you choose the federal administration, you choos...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,104
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hållbara Malmö

Hållbara Malmö

-
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
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

-
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 Hållbara Malmö in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Workingfor.be in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hållbara Malmö (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hållbara Malmö 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 - Workingfor.be (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workingfor.be 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...
Hållbara Malmö

Hållbara Malmö

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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