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

Comparison Overview

PCH DienstengroepPCH Dienstengroep
VS
CintasCintas
PCH Dienstengroep

PCH Dienstengroep

Weegschaalstraat 10, Apeldoorn, undefined, 7324 BG, NL

Last Update: 21/12/2025

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Specialist in asset management & services op de parkeer- en facilitaire vastgoedmarkt. Een VolkerWessels onderneming. Facility Management & Services Wij verzorgen alle diensten die een bedrijfsvoering ondersteunen. Gebouwbeheer, energie, catering, afvalmanagement of s...

NAICS:561
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:83
Subsidiaries:73
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cintas

Cintas

6800 Cintas Blvd, Mason, 45040, US

Last Update: 05/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.cintas.com
824/1000Good

Cintas Corporation, a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Cincinnati, specializes in helping businesses of all sizes get Ready™ for the Workday®. We provide a comprehensive range of products and services, including uniforms, mats, mops, towels, restroom supplies, workp...

NAICS:5612
NAICS Definition:Facilities Support Services
Employees:29,820
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PCH Dienstengroep

PCH Dienstengroep

-
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
Cintas

Cintas

-
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 Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PCH Dienstengroep in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Facilities Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cintas in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PCH Dienstengroep (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PCH Dienstengroep 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 - Cintas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cintas 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...
PCH Dienstengroep

PCH Dienstengroep

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cintas

Cintas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56082
SUMMARY

Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-56081
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56080
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-56079
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-56073
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9