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
MindtreeMindtree
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
Mindtree

Mindtree

Bangalore, India - New Jersey, USA, Bangalore, 560059, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.ltimindtree.com
806/1000Good

LTIMindtree is a global technology consulting and digital solutions company that enables enterprises across industries to reimagine business models, accelerate innovation, and maximize growth by harnessing digital technologies. As a digital transformation partner to mor...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:20,000
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Mindtree

Mindtree

-
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 46.24% 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 Mindtree 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 - Mindtree (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mindtree 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...
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
Mindtree

Mindtree

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー company and Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree 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 Mindtree, 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 Mindtree, 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 Mindtree ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー or Mindtree ?
Between 株式会社リクルート住まいカンパニー and Mindtree, 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 Mindtree, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-18556
SUMMARY

Authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel vulnerability in N-able N-central allows Authentication Bypass. This issue affects N-central: through 2026.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55735
SUMMARY

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature in ueberauth guardian allows an unauthenticated attacker to revoke a victim's session with a forged token. Guardian.revoke/3 in lib/guardian.ex decodes the supplied token with peek/1, which performs no signature verification (it only base64-decodes the JWT header and payload). The resulting unverified claims are forwarded directly to the configured token module's revoke callback and the implementation's on_revoke callback, a state-mutating sink. The sibling operations refresh/2 and exchange/4 both call decode_and_verify first, so the signature is checked before anything acts on the claims; revoke/3 is the only state-mutating path that acts on claims without verifying the signature. An attacker who knows or guesses a victim's identifying claim values (jti, sub) can forge a JWT carrying those claims, sign it with an arbitrary key, and submit it to any endpoint that funnels a caller-supplied token into Guardian.revoke/3 (the standard logout / session-revocation pattern). When the token module mutates state keyed by the claims (whitelist deletion or blacklist insertion, for example a GuardianDb-style store), the victim's legitimate session is evicted. This is an unauthenticated session-revocation denial of service; the attacker never needs the signing secret. This issue affects guardian: from 1.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55734
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in ueberauth guardian (Guardian.Permissions module) allows a denial of service via BEAM atom-table exhaustion. This vulnerability is associated with program file lib/guardian/permissions.ex and program routines 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':encode_permissions!/1, 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':encode_permissions_into_claims!/2, 'Elixir.Guardian.Permissions':do_encode_permissions!/2. The Guardian.Permissions mixin installs a public encode_permissions!/1 function on every module that does use Guardian.Permissions. For each key of the supplied map, encode_permissions!/1 calls String.to_atom(to_string(k)) before any validation runs. The integer-value clause of do_encode_permissions!/2 then short-circuits straight to encoding without validating the key against the configured permission set, so a key with an integer value is interned as a fresh atom with no exception raised. Atoms are never garbage collected and the BEAM atom table is a fixed-size resource (default roughly 1,048,576 entries), so each unique attacker-chosen key permanently consumes one slot. An attacker who can influence a permission map that reaches encode_permissions!/1 (for example a permissions map read from a request body and passed into token issuance via encode_permissions_into_claims!/2) can mint an unbounded number of atoms and exhaust the atom table, crashing the entire BEAM node and every service running on it. The sibling decode_permissions/1 is not affected because it skips keys absent from the configured permission set. This issue affects guardian: from 2.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-55733
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in ueberauth guardian allows denial of service via unbounded atom creation from attacker-controlled binary input. Guardian.Permissions.AtomEncoding encodes permission scopes by passing arbitrary binaries to String.to_atom/1. When encode/3 in lib/guardian/permissions/atom_encoding.ex is called with a list, each binary entry is handled by the encode_value/3 binary clause, which calls String.to_atom(value) with no allow-list check. The perm_set argument (the application's small, finite set of legitimate permission names) is discarded, so any external string flows straight into atom creation. This encoder is selected with use Guardian.Permissions, encoding: Guardian.Permissions.AtomEncoding and reached through the imported encode/3 entry point. String.to_atom/1 creates a brand-new atom for every previously unseen binary, atoms are never garbage collected, and the BEAM atom table is fixed at roughly 1,048,576 entries by default. An application that funnels attacker-influenced permission scopes (from a request body, a JWT claim, or other external input) into encode/3 therefore mints one permanent atom per distinct value. A modest stream of varied, unauthenticated input permanently consumes the atom table and crashes the BEAM node with system_limit, taking down every application running on it. The default encoder is Guardian.Permissions.BitwiseEncoding, which is not affected. This issue affects guardian: from 2.0.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-54894
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling in ueberauth guardian allows denial of service via unbounded atom creation from attacker-influenced binary input. Guardian.Plug.Keys derives connection and session namespace keys by passing arbitrary binaries to String.to_atom/1. base_key/1 in lib/guardian/plug/keys.ex converts any binary into the atom :"guardian_<input>", and the derived helpers claims_key/1, resource_key/1, and token_key/1 create a second atom on top of that. key_from_other/1 likewise converts a regex-captured binary through String.to_atom/1. The public specs advertise String.t() as a valid argument, so passing a string is documented usage, and higher-level entry points such as Guardian.Plug.current_token(conn, key: key) thread the caller-supplied key straight into these functions. String.to_atom/1 creates a brand-new atom for every previously unseen binary, atoms are never garbage collected, and the BEAM atom table is fixed at roughly 1,048,576 entries by default. An application that routes attacker-influenced data (a tenant identifier, header, or other request input) into a Guardian key therefore mints one permanent atom per distinct value. A modest stream of varied, unauthenticated input permanently consumes the atom table and crashes the BEAM node, taking down every application running on it. This issue affects guardian: from 0.1.0 before 2.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-01
UPDATED
Date2026-08-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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