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

Comparison Overview

PulteGroup Georgia DivisionPulteGroup Georgia Division
VS
GMR GroupGMR Group
PulteGroup Georgia Division

PulteGroup Georgia Division

Alpharetta, US

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.pultegroup.com
752/1000Fair

The Georgia Division of PulteGroup represents one of America’s largest homebuilding companies in the Atlanta Area with recent expansion into Greenville, South Carolina. Through inspired employees, exceptional customer service, superior operational execution, and a fores...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
GMR Group

GMR Group

New Udaan Bhawan, New Delhi, 110037, IN

Last Update: 20/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gmrgroup.in
781/1000Fair

GMR Group is a leading Indian infrastructure conglomerate with a diversified presence across Airports, Energy, Transportation, Urban Infrastructure, and Sports. With over two decades of experience, the Group has built world-class assets and pioneered innovations in sust...

NAICS:23
NAICS Definition:Construction
Employees:16,275
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PulteGroup Georgia Division

PulteGroup Georgia Division

-
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
GMR Group

GMR 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 Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PulteGroup Georgia Division in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Construction Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GMR Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - PulteGroup Georgia Division (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PulteGroup Georgia Division cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - GMR Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GMR Group 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...
PulteGroup Georgia Division

PulteGroup Georgia Division

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
GMR Group

GMR Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:L/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-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA