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

Comparison Overview

Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPDInformatik Service Center ISC-EJPD
VS
CGICGI
Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

Eichenweg 3, Zollikofen, 3052, CH

Last Update: 03/12/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Das Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD ist der verlässliche Gesamtlösungsanbieter für individuelle Fachanwendungen mit erhöhten Anforderungen im Eidgenössischen Justiz- und Polizeidepartement EJPD sowie in der übrigen zivilen Bundesverwaltung. Mit unserem Know-how sowi...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:256
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CGI

CGI

Worldwide, Worldwide, CA, 00

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://cgi.com
739/1000Moderate

Insights you can act on. Founded in 1976, CGI is among the largest IT and business consulting services firms in the world. We are insights-driven and outcomes-focused to help accelerate returns on your investments. Across hundreds of locations worldwide, we provide com...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:70,253
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

-
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
CGI

CGI

-
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 Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD in 2026.

Incidents

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

CGI has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

CGI 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...
Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

Informatik Service Center ISC-EJPD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CGI

CGI

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CGI1773398582

FAQ

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