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
OracleOracle
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
Oracle

Oracle

2300 Oracle Way, Austin, 78741, US

Last Update: 23/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.oracle.com
100/1000Critical

Oracle is a global leader in AI, delivering the cloud infrastructure, data, and applications that organizations across the world trust to successfully achieve business outcomes at scale. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) provides fast, flexible, scalable AI infrastruct...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:207,847
Subsidiaries:33
12-month incidents
28
Known data breaches
19
Attack type number
4

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
Oracle

Oracle

-
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)

Oracle has 2566.67% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Oracle (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oracle 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...
metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Oracle

Oracle

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CISSONMICORAASYKNX1784341544
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ORA1782750283
🔒 Incident : Breach
MOO1781786358

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1