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

Comparison Overview

Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat OyRakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy
VS
ClinicClinic
Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

Pori, 28100, FI

Last Update: 13/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.rakentaja.fi
749/1000Moderate

Rakentaja.fi-palvelut ovat kasvaneet vuosien varrella Suomen suurimmaksi rakentamisen ja remontoinnin digitaaliseksi yhteisöksi lähes 300 000 uutiskirjetilaajan voimin. Tehtävämme on yhdistää kuluttajat, ammattilaiset ja rakennusteollisuus — tarjoamalla luotettavaa tiet...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:15
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Clinic

Clinic

20-24 Broadwick St, London, W1F 8HT, GB

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.clinic.co.uk
840/1000Good

Clinic is an independent creative agency. We create bold ideas, and craft them beautifully, to get people thinking, believing and doing. All of our experience goes into what we do today, and although our world’s constantly changing, the endpoint is still people a...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:17,758
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

-
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
Clinic

Clinic

-
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 Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Clinic in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy 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 - Clinic (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Clinic 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...
Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

Rakentaja.fi, Rakentaja Mediat Oy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Clinic

Clinic

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2