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

Comparison Overview

Notary PublicNotary Public
VS
RP Sanjiv Goenka GroupRP Sanjiv Goenka Group
Notary Public

Notary Public

undefined, undefined, undefined, 95993, US

Last Update: 06/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://[email protected]
782/1000Fair

My website is for Real Estate information. Knowledge of real estate contracts gives the added advantage to ensure your paperwork is filled in completely and notarized properly. Every notarization request receives knowledgeable attention, accuracy and care!

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:4,050
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

Kolkata, IN

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rpsg.in
798/1000Fair

The RPSG Group is one of India's fastest growing conglomerates with a significant global presence. The Group's businesses include power and energy, carbon black manufacturing, retail, IT-enabled services, FMCG, media and entertainment, and agriculture. In the last few ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:33,866
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Notary Public

Notary Public

-
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
RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

-
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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Notary Public in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RP Sanjiv Goenka Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Notary Public (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Notary Public cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - RP Sanjiv Goenka Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RP Sanjiv Goenka Group 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...
Notary Public

Notary Public

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

RP Sanjiv Goenka Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3