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

Comparison Overview

Land Transport Authority (LTA) SingaporeLand Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore
VS
Workingfor.beWorkingfor.be
Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

1 Hampshire Road, Singapore, 219428, SG

Last Update: 06/11/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lta.gov.sg
774/1000Fair

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport that plans, builds and maintains Singapore’s land transport infrastructure and systems. We are at the forefront of construction and engineering, and employ state-of-the-art technolog...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:4,927
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Simon Bolivarlaan 30, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.workingfor.be
782/1000Fair

Workingfor.be is the job platform of the federal administration. Here, you will find a wide variety of jobs in different fields of profession. Every day thousands of our employees help build tomorrow's society. When you choose the federal administration, you choos...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,104
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

-
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
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

-
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 Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Workingfor.be in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore 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 - Workingfor.be (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workingfor.be 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...
Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
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-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA