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

Comparison Overview

HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技
VS
InetumInetum
HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

Floor 20, Puming Road, Pudong New Area 浦东新区浦明路20层, 上海市 , Shanghai, 200122 , CN

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Tianhai Investment, a subsidiary of HNA Technology Group, is a listed company in the Shanghai A-shares market, with a focus on high technology in the fields of artificial intelligence, big data and cloud. Backed by Fortune 500, parent company HNA Group with its rich ind...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:33
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Inetum

Inetum

5, Rue Touzet Gaillard, St.-Ouen, Île-de-France, FR, 93400

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.inetum.com
773/1000Fair

Inetum is a European leader in digital services. Inetum’s team of 27,000 consultants and specialists strive every day to make a digital impact for businesses, public sector entities and society. Inetum’s solutions aim at contributing to its clients’ performance and inno...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:20,907
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

-
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
Inetum

Inetum

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Inetum in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技 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 - Inetum (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Inetum 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...
HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

HNA Technology Co., Ltd 海航科技

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Inetum

Inetum

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
INE154130322

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2