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

Comparison Overview

NCCNCC
VS
GartnerGartner
NCC

NCC

1250 S Capital of Texas Hwy, West Lake Hills, 78746, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.nccdirect.com
633/1000Poor

NCC has been improving the profitability of our clients for almost three decades. We enable our clients to increase sales, lower costs, and automate compliance through the most comprehensive suite of consumer intelligence in the market today. Our innovation, combined ...

NAICS:519
NAICS Definition:Other Information Services
Employees:134
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Gartner

Gartner

56 Top Gallant Street, Stamford, 06904, US

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://gtnr.it/3vpPW81
629/1000Poor

We deliver actionable, objective business and technology insights. Our expert guidance and tools enable faster, smarter decisions and stronger performance on an organization’s mission-critical priorities. Our unrivaled combination of business and technology insights st...

NAICS:519
NAICS Definition:Other Information Services
Employees:23,403
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NCC

NCC

-
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
Gartner

Gartner

-
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 Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NCC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Gartner has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

NCC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Gartner 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...
NCC

NCC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NAT2492824091525
Gartner

Gartner

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IVAGARCRO1771266582
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VEEGARTOTHAL1781807154

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8