Comparison Overview
SGS Maco Customs Service 

SGS Maco Customs Service
Schepersweg 4B, Roermond, Limburg, 6049 CV, NL
Last Update: 21/04/2026
SGS Maco is a specialized, full-service customs service provider. Since 1953, we have been supporting companies across the world with all their customs-related matters. We offer expertise in brokerage, VAT, customs duty, e-commerce, software solutions, and provide advic...

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 32+36, Bonn, 53113, DE
Last Update: 01/04/2026
As a service provider in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development and international education work, we are dedicated to shaping a future worth living around the world. GIZ has over 50 years of experience in a wide variety of areas, including ec...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

SGS Maco Customs Service







Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs International Trade and Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for SGS Maco Customs Service in 2026.
Incidents vs International Trade and Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH in 2026.
Incident History - SGS Maco Customs Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)
SGS Maco Customs Service cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

SGS Maco Customs Service

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.
Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.
Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.
Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.
Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.