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

Comparison Overview

IMMO MousquetairesIMMO Mousquetaires
VS
REMAXREMAX
IMMO Mousquetaires

IMMO Mousquetaires

Parc de Tréville, Bondoufle, 91070, FR

Last Update: 31/12/2025

View Profile

IMMO Mousquetaires, foncière du Groupement des Mousquetaires, en charge du développement, accompagne la croissance du numéro 3 français de la grande distribution, qui regroupe plus de 3000 adhérents, chefs d'entreprises indépendants, implantés partout en France. Grâce ...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:219
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
REMAX

REMAX

5075 S. Syracuse St., Denver, 80237, US

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.remax.com
743/1000Moderate

As one of the leading global real estate franchisors, RE/MAX, LLC is a subsidiary of RE/MAX Holdings (NYSE: RMAX) with more than 140,000 agents in almost 9,000 offices and a presence in more than 110 countries and territories. Nobody in the world sells more real estat...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:43,488
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IMMO Mousquetaires

IMMO Mousquetaires

-
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
REMAX

REMAX

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IMMO Mousquetaires in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for REMAX in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - IMMO Mousquetaires (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IMMO Mousquetaires cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

REMAX 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...
IMMO Mousquetaires

IMMO Mousquetaires

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
REMAX

REMAX

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JOHREM1770865850

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2