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

Comparison Overview

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbHmetafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH
VS
AtosAtos
metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

Leopoldstraße 146, Munich, 80804, DE

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://metafinanz.de/
755/1000Fair

For over 35 years, metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH, a business and IT consulting company, has been at the side of its customers in an increasingly digital and dynamic world. Our promise: We shine a new light on future viability. We enable our customers to find, deve...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:785
Subsidiaries:95
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Atos

Atos

80 Quai Voltaire, 95877 Bezons, FR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.atos.net
753/1000Fair

Atos Group is a global leader in digital transformation with c. 67,000 employees and annual revenue of c. €10 billion, operating in 61 countries under two brands — Atos for services and Eviden for products. European number one in cybersecurity, cloud and high performanc...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:87,005
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

-
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
Atos

Atos

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atos in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Atos 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...
metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Atos

Atos

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA