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

Comparison Overview

NAT - Commission for Natural ResourcesNAT - Commission for Natural Resources
VS
South African Revenue Service (SARS)South African Revenue Service (SARS)
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

Rue Belliard 99/101, Bruxelles, 1040, BE

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile

The NAT commission brings together over 100 mayors, councillors and regional presidents and covers a wide range of topics related to rural development, health, agriculture, forestry, fishery, civil protection, consumer protection and tourism. The Rural Agenda for Europ...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

Lehae La Sars, Pretoria, 0001, ZA

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sars.gov.za
795/1000Fair

Its main functions are to: collect and administer all national taxes, duties and levies; collect revenue that may be imposed under any other legislation, as agreed on between SARS and an organ of state or institution entitled to the revenue; provide protection a...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:11,341
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

-
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
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NAT - Commission for Natural Resources in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for South African Revenue Service (SARS) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NAT - Commission for Natural Resources (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - South African Revenue Service (SARS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

South African Revenue Service (SARS) 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...
NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

NAT - Commission for Natural Resources

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
South African Revenue Service (SARS)

South African Revenue Service (SARS)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources company and South African Revenue Service (SARS) company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources and South African Revenue Service (SARS), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources and South African Revenue Service (SARS), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - NAT - Commission for Natural Resources or South African Revenue Service (SARS) ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - NAT - Commission for Natural Resources or South African Revenue Service (SARS) ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources and South African Revenue Service (SARS), which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between NAT - Commission for Natural Resources and South African Revenue Service (SARS), 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