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

Comparison Overview

NESCTC Security Agency, LLCNESCTC Security Agency, LLC
VS
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e ServiçosGocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços
NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

46 Molter Street, Cranston, RI, 02910, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.nesctc.com
741/1000Moderate

NESCTC is a privately held, limited liability company headquartered in Cranston, RI. NESCTC works globally as a security management company providing contracted security to some of the worlds leading companies. We offer the most competitive rates and greatest cover...

NAICS:561
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:65
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Avenida Professor Francisco Morato 525, São Paulo, 05513-000, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gocil.com.br
782/1000Fair

One of the largest companies in the professional services and security markets in Brazil. Formed by four branches, patrimonial security, personal security, electronic security and general services. Counting with around 16.000 employees, Gocil is present at several brazi...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:10,859
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

-
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
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NESCTC Security Agency, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NESCTC Security Agency, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NESCTC Security Agency, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços 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...
NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

NESCTC Security Agency, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NES5393153111525
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA