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

Comparison Overview

BetalingsserviceBetalingsservice
VS
The Max GroupThe Max Group
Betalingsservice

Betalingsservice

Arne Jacobsens Allé 13, København, 2300, DK

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Betalingsservice er den foretrukne måde at betale regninger på i stort set alle husholdninger. Med Betalingsservice kan du tilmelde dine faste regninger til automatisk betaling, når de forefalder – det kan være månedligt, hvert kvartal, årligt osv. Betalingsservice gør ...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
The Max Group

The Max Group

Max House 1,, New Delhi, 110020, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.maxindia.com
776/1000Fair

Max Group is a $7 billion diversified Indian conglomerate founded by Mr. Analjit Singh with a strong presence across Senior Care, Life Insurance, and Real Estate. Guided by a purpose-driven approach, we aim to create meaningful solutions that improve lives and deliver l...

NAICS:52
NAICS Definition:Finance and Insurance
Employees:31,162
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Betalingsservice

Betalingsservice

-
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
The Max Group

The Max Group

-
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 Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Betalingsservice in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Max Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Betalingsservice cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - The Max Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Max Group 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...
Betalingsservice

Betalingsservice

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
The Max Group

The Max Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2