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

Comparison Overview

Randstad Groep NederlandRandstad Groep Nederland
VS
Gi GroupGi Group
Randstad Groep Nederland

Randstad Groep Nederland

Diemermere 25, Diemen, 1112, NL

Last Update: 29/01/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Al 65 jaar draait het bij Randstad om meer dan alleen werk. Vanaf onze oprichting geven we mensen betekenis, perspectief en welzijn door werk dat er echt toe doet. Elke dag vinden wereldwijd ruim 500.000 talenten hun weg via Randstad. Jaarlijks realiseren we meer dan 2...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:824
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gi Group

Gi Group

Piazza IV Novembre, 5, Milan, MI, IT

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.gigroup.com
810/1000Good

Welcome to Gi Group! Your job, Our work! Gi Group is one of the world’s leading companies providing a full range of HR Services. We offer Temporary, Permanent and Professional Staffing Services, Search & Selection and Executive Search as well as Outsourcing, Training,...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:17,107
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Randstad Groep Nederland

Randstad Groep Nederland

-
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
Gi Group

Gi 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 Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Randstad Groep Nederland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gi Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Randstad Groep Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Randstad Groep Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Gi 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...
Randstad Groep Nederland

Randstad Groep Nederland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gi Group

Gi Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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:L/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9