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

Comparison Overview

TAKEDA IBDpointTAKEDA IBDpoint
VS
Smart FitSmart Fit
TAKEDA IBDpoint

TAKEDA IBDpoint

IT

Last Update: 18/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.takeda.it/
768/1000Fair

Il nuovo Account Takeda Italia dedicato alle malattie infiammatorie croniche intestinali (IBD) per coloro che desiderano un aggiornamento veloce e continuo. Disclaimer: Questa pagina è destinata esclusivamente a condividere informazioni sulle malattie infiammatorie cro...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Smart Fit

Smart Fit

Avenida Paulista 1294, São Paulo, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.smartfit.com.br
796/1000Fair

Somos o Grupo Smart Fit, a força que ativa o seu potencial. Um ecossistema em constante evolução que une tecnologia, propósito e performance para transformar o fitness, e a vida das pessoas, em movimento real. Com mais de 22 mil colaboradores e colaboradoras em 16 país...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:13,938
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TAKEDA IBDpoint

TAKEDA IBDpoint

-
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
Smart Fit

Smart Fit

-
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 Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TAKEDA IBDpoint in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Smart Fit in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - TAKEDA IBDpoint (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TAKEDA IBDpoint cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Smart Fit (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Smart Fit 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...
TAKEDA IBDpoint

TAKEDA IBDpoint

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Smart Fit

Smart Fit

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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