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

Comparison Overview

METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.comMETEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com
VS
SONDASONDA
METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

Marcel-Breuer Straße 16, München, 80807, DE

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

METEONOMIQS ist das B2B Data Solutions-Angebot von wetter.com. Mit unseren datengetriebenen Insights und Lösungen eröffnen wir Ihnen neue Perspektiven, bessere Entscheidungen zu treffen und unentdeckte Geschäftspotenziale zu heben. Dafür setzen wir modernste Methoden au...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SONDA

SONDA

Teatinos 500, Santiago, CL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sonda.com
794/1000Fair

We are at the forefront of digital transformation in the Americas, positively impacting the lives of over 500 million people. As a key player in emerging industries, we drive innovation and change through ambitious modernization projects and cutting-edge solutions. By u...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:14,805
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

-
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
SONDA

SONDA

-
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 METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for SONDA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

SONDA 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...
METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

METEONOMIQS powered by wetter.com

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SONDA

SONDA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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