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

Comparison Overview

LuzacLuzac
VS
TAFE NSWTAFE NSW
Luzac

Luzac

Marathon 7, Hilversum, Noord-Holland, NL, 1213

Last Update: 15/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://http://www.luzac.nl/
764/1000Fair

Wij geloven in onze aanpak, en vooral in onze leerlingen. Zij halen immers het maximale uit zichzelf, met verbluffende resultaten als gevolg. Ons particulier voortgezet onderwijs is kleinschalig, flexibel en persoonlijk, uw zoon of dochter staat centraal. Zo bieden ...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:368
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TAFE NSW

TAFE NSW

Cnr Harris St & Mary Ann St, Ultimo, New South Wales, AU, 2007

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tafensw.edu.au/
778/1000Fair

TAFE NSW is one of Australia's leading vocational education and training provider with over 100 years of experience. It caters for students at the local level, the national level and the international level. TAFE NSW has over 130 locations across the state. Through a s...

NAICS:92311
NAICS Definition:Administration of Education Programs
Employees:13,160
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Luzac

Luzac

-
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
TAFE NSW

TAFE NSW

-
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 Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Luzac in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Education Administration Programs Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TAFE NSW in 2026.

Incidents

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

Luzac 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 - TAFE NSW (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TAFE NSW 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...
Luzac

Luzac

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TAFE NSW

TAFE NSW

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAF0403423

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8