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

Comparison Overview

KeswickKeswick
VS
Grupo FleuryGrupo Fleury
Keswick

Keswick

700 West 40th Street, Baltimore, MD, US, 21211

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.ChooseKeswick.org
731/1000Moderate

A Baltimore health resource for 138 years, Keswick provides healthcare solutions to enhance the quality of life for older adults and their families. Keswick delivers services including Rehabilitation and Nursing Home care as well as a range of community-based programs b...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:103
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Grupo Fleury

Grupo Fleury

Avenida Morumbi, 8860, São Paulo, SP, BR

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
771/1000Fair

O Grupo Fleury é reconhecido como uma referência de qualidade em medicina diagnóstica no país, com soluções completas, coordenação de cuidado centrada no indivíduo, capacidade de inovação e tecnologia. Temos um portfólio de saúde integrado, preventivo e híbrido, nascem...

NAICS:71394
NAICS Definition:Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
Employees:14,568
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Keswick

Keswick

-
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
Grupo Fleury

Grupo Fleury

-
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 Keswick in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Grupo Fleury in 2026.

Incidents

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

Keswick cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Grupo Fleury (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grupo Fleury 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...
Keswick

Keswick

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KES914072825
Grupo Fleury

Grupo Fleury

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GRU2029251122

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA