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

Comparison Overview

Omada by TP-Link NLOmada by TP-Link NL
VS
Gainwell TechnologiesGainwell Technologies
Omada by TP-Link NL

Omada by TP-Link NL

Archimedesbaan 18‎, Nieuwegein, 3439 ME, NL

Last Update: 02/12/2025

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Omada is een Software-Defined Networking (SDN) platform voor integratie en beheer van netwerkproducten zoals access points, switches, en routers voor het effectief beheren van jouw netwerkinfrastructuur. Met een uitgebreid assortiment aan netwerkapparatuur biedt Omada N...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

United States, US

Last Update: 22/08/2026

View Profile
586/1000Very Poor

The people who build careers at Gainwell Technologies share one thing: they want their work to matter. Here, it does. We're the essential ingredient that makes Medicaid work. For more than 50 years, we've combined our sweeping scale and technology to turn complex polic...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:11,047
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Omada by TP-Link NL

Omada by TP-Link NL

-
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
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Omada by TP-Link NL in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Gainwell Technologies has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Omada by TP-Link NL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Omada by TP-Link NL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gainwell Technologies 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...
Omada by TP-Link NL

Omada by TP-Link NL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STAGAI1787430483
🔒 Incident : Breach
HARGAISOC1779481525
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1992519092625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85456
SUMMARY

MOOS-IvP through 24.8.1 fails to properly validate variable names extracted from alog files in the SplitHandler, allowing attackers to write files outside the split directory. Attackers can supply crafted alog files with backslash sequences in variable names to escape the output directory and append to arbitrary files on Windows systems.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
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:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-85455
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in CMOOSCommPkt where a four-byte packet triggers out-of-bounds memory access during deserialization. Attackers can open a TCP connection to the MOOSDB port and send a crafted short packet to read memory before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-85454
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in CMOOSSerialPort::GetTelegram() that writes a NUL terminator one byte past the serial telegram stack buffer. Attackers controlling the serial line can send a full-length telegram to trigger the off-by-one write, corrupting the stack and potentially enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-85453
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 fails to escape database contents when rendering MOOSDB HTTP pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts. Any MOOS publisher can set variable values containing script payloads that execute in the browser of operators viewing the web interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-85452
SUMMARY

MOOS ui-moos through 50b9c6c contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in ScopeTabPane.cpp and ScopeGrid.cpp where client and variable names are formatted into fixed 1024-byte buffers using sprintf without length validation. Attackers can supply arbitrarily long MOOS identifiers that overflow the buffers when an operator selects process list entries or pokes variables, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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