Comparison Overview
Lucova Inc.

Lucova Inc.
487 Adelaide St W, Toronto, M5V 1T4, CA
Last Update: 11/05/2026
Lucova brings technology, data and people together to enhance the human touch-points in the world of in-store commerce. Our tools for small retail to enterprise businesses strengthen the loyal customer behaviour by turning customers’ smartphones into intelligent Bluetoo...

GFT Technologies
Schelmenwasenstr. 34, Stuttgart, 70567, DE
Last Update: 20/09/2026
GFT Technologies is an AI-centric global digital transformation company. We design advanced data and AI transformation solutions, modernize technology architectures and develop next-generation core systems for industry leaders in Banking, Insurance, Manufacturing and Ro...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Lucova Inc.







GFT Technologies






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Lucova Inc. in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for GFT Technologies in 2026.
Incident History - Lucova Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lucova Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - GFT Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)
GFT Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Lucova Inc.

GFT Technologies
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.