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

Comparison Overview

MCA ChinaMCA China
VS
ComputacenterComputacenter
MCA China

MCA China

undefined, Shanghai, undefined, China, CN

Last Update: 22/01/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

MCA是一家欧洲工程技术公司,为其人才和大客户提供大规模、高技术项目支持。凭借30年的经验和1500名员工,我们被定位为所有工业和创新领域的关键参与者。 多年来,我们的活力和不断增长使我们能够在法国以及国际上开展活动:比利时、德国、荷兰、瑞典、意大利和西班牙。这一广泛的地理位置为我们的顾问提供了巨大的机会,我们的客户更接近和更精确的领域专业知识。 自2019年以来,MCA一直在进行多元化经营,以便为客户提供尽可能高质量的服务。我们的定位使我们能够陪伴您: 1/增强产品解决方案:开发受控和连接系统。 2/增强型工厂解决方案:开发智...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Computacenter

Computacenter

Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, AL10 9TW, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.computacenter.com
759/1000Fair

Computacenter is a leading independent technology and services provider, trusted by large corporate and public sector organisations. We are a responsible business that believes in winning together for our people and our planet. We help our customers to Source, Tran...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:20,379
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MCA China

MCA China

-
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
Computacenter

Computacenter

-
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 Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MCA China in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Computacenter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - MCA China (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MCA China 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 - Computacenter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Computacenter 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...
MCA China

MCA China

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Computacenter

Computacenter

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
COM224219323

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8