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

Comparison Overview

Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CAIntact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA
VS
PortoPorto
Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

700 University Ave, Toronto, CA

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Welcome to Intact Broker. As Canada’s largest provider of home, auto and business insurance, we are here to help people, businesses and society prosper in good times and be resilient in bad times. This page is your go-to hub for broker tools, ideas and support. Togethe...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Porto

Porto

Avenida Rio Branco, 1489, Sao Paulo, SP, BR, 01205-001

Last Update: 19/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://porto.vc/linkedin
648/1000Poor

A Porto é mais que uma seguradora, é um ecossistema de soluções de serviços de proteção com tecnologia embarcada, para melhorar e facilitar a experiência do cliente. Com mais de 70 anos de mercado, a atuação da companhia se concentra hoje em quatro pilares estratégicos ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:24,464
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

-
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
Porto

Porto

-
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 Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Porto in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA 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 - Porto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Porto 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...
Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

Intact Broker CA | Intact Représentant CA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Porto

Porto

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR3692036090725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
POR4102041102125

FAQ

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