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

Comparison Overview

ReplyReply
VS
GFT TechnologiesGFT Technologies
Reply

Reply

C.so Francia, 110, Turin, 10143, IT

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.reply.com
769/1000Fair

Reply [EXM, STAR: REY] specialises in the design and implementation of solutions based on new communication channels and digital media. As a network of highly specialised companies, Reply defines and develops business models enabled by the new models of AI, big data, cl...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:16,816
Subsidiaries:117
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Schelmenwasenstr. 34, Stuttgart, 70567, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.gft.com
751/1000Fair

GFT Technologies is an AI-centric global digital transformation company. We design advanced data and AI transformation solutions, modernize technology architectures and develop next-generation core systems for industry leaders in Banking, Insurance, Manufacturing and Ro...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:13,147
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Reply

Reply

-
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
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Reply in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GFT Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

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

Reply 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 - GFT Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GFT Technologies 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...
Reply

Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85893
SUMMARY

Use after free in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-69486
SUMMARY

Heap-based buffer overflow in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2025-11395
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Podman. If an attacker can pass a crafted tar archive to the `podman load` command, they can create files on the host machine with the privileges of the user running Podman.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-92259
SUMMARY

Integer overflow or wraparound vulnerability in Samsung Opensource Escargot allows attackers with write access to the bytecode-cache directory to cause a heap-based buffer overflow and denial of service via a crafted cache file. This issue affects Escargot: ac94df78493ee6fede286620d94f724e46b4d238.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-92257
SUMMARY

Netcore NR255-V version 1.5.130703 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in L7 content management pages that use eval() sinks, affecting the call board text and policy group handling components. Attackers can inject persistent script payloads through these pages to have malicious code executed in the context of other users viewing the affected content.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-15
UPDATED
Date2026-09-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3