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

Comparison Overview

IT.NiedersachsenIT.Niedersachsen
VS
NavNav
IT.Niedersachsen

IT.Niedersachsen

Göttinger Chaussee 259, Hannover, 30459, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Wir von IT.Niedersachsen verbinden das Land und seine Leute. Denn wir stellen sicher, dass die Beschäftigten in der öffentlichen Verwaltung digital arbeiten können. Und wir sorgen dafür, dass Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Zukunft alle Ämter, Behörden und Ministerien online ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:302
Subsidiaries:35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Nav

Nav

Fyrstikkalléen 1, Oslo, 0661, NO

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.nav.no
781/1000Fair

Nav er en viktig del av sikkerhetsnettet i velferdsstaten. Vi skal bidra til at flere kommer i arbeid og færre går på stønad, og samtidig sørge for at de som trenger det er sikra inntekt og økonomisk trygghet gjennom rett pengestøtte til rett tid. For å løse dette samf...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:13,220
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IT.Niedersachsen

IT.Niedersachsen

-
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
Nav

Nav

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IT.Niedersachsen in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nav in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - IT.Niedersachsen (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IT.Niedersachsen 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 - Nav (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nav 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...
IT.Niedersachsen

IT.Niedersachsen

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Nav

Nav

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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