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

Comparison Overview

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー
VS
ComputacenterComputacenter
株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

芝浦3-12-7, 港区, 108-0023, JP

Last Update: 09/04/2026

View Profile
674/1000Weak

住まいを中心とした暮らし領域の「未来にある普通のもの」を生み出すために。 1976年の「住宅情報」創刊から始まった私たちの事業は、住まいを探しているカスタマーの方々と、多くの企業の皆様に支えられて成長してきました。そして今、住まい・暮らし領域には、ReTech(不動産テック)という大きな潮流が訪れ、ITによる業界変革が急速に進んでおり、不動産・住宅情報サイトとして国内トップクラスのカスタマーリーチを誇る「SUUMO」も、ITを駆使してイノベーションをおこし続ける必要があります。 これから5年後、10年後はどんな暮らし方、住まいの探し...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:114
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Computacenter

Computacenter

Hatfield Avenue, Hatfield, AL10 9TW, GB

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.computacenter.com
769/1000Fair

Computacenter is a leading independent technology and services provider, trusted by large corporate and public sector organisations. We are a responsible business that believes in winning together for our people and our planet. We help our customers to Source, Tran...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:20,379
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

-
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
Computacenter

Computacenter

-
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 Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー has 51.46% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Computacenter in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー (X = Date, Y = Severity)

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Computacenter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Computacenter 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...
株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RECCHIATH1775708870
Computacenter

Computacenter

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
COM224219323

FAQ

Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Computacenter company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー and Computacenter, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー and Computacenter, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー or Computacenter ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー or Computacenter ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー and Computacenter, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー and Computacenter, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94094
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in OpenClaw up to 2026.9.5. Affected is the function createCanvasHostHandler of the file extensions/canvas/src/host/server.ts of the component Canvas Host Route. Executing a manipulation can lead to denial of service. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. Fix suggestion's "streaming/size-limit" was never shipped - latest 2026.9.5 still buffers the whole file via readFile() (src/canvas/serve.runtime.ts:17,114), unlike the sibling WS path which caps at 64KB. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.8
CVE-2026-94093
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in DLR-RM stable-baselines3 up to 2.9.0. This affects the function PPO.load/load_replay_buffer/VecNormalize.load of the file save_util.py. Such manipulation leads to deserialization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. In v2.9.0 the PyTorch tensor load path is hardened (weights_only=True), but that hardening was later reverted on master via PR #1913 "Hotfix: revert loading with weights_only=True" [blocked] to fix PyTorch 1.13 compat - so even the one "safe" path is inconsistent across versions. #2281 was closed as a duplicate of #1831 since both are unsafe pickle deserialization - but #1831's fix (PR #41) only gated the Hugging Face Hub loader in the separate huggingface_sb3 package. This finding covers the core stable_baselines3 load APIs (PPO.load, load_replay_buffer, VecNormalize.load), which have no safe mode or gate and remained exploitable in v2.9.0 until the outstanding hardening (PR #2264) ships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-94092
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in dmlc dgl up to 2.1.0. This impacts the function load_info/_read_torch_data of the file utils.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument path results in deserialization. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94091
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in piskvorky gensim up to 4.4.0. The impacted element is the function Load of the file gensim/utils.py of the component Model Loader. This manipulation of the argument fname causes deserialization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Maintainer closed #3663 same-day with no comment, PR, or fix; repo's last push (2025-11-01) predates the report, so the unsafe pickle.load in SaveLoad.load remains unguarded at develop HEAD.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94090
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in JusticeRage Manalyze 1.0.0. The affected element is the function PE::_parse_debug of the file manape/pe.cpp of the component PE Parser. The manipulation of the argument misc.Length results in integer underflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The patch is identified as 3e299685759f4f767088871de58c5d07f98ee382. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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: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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8