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

Comparison Overview

RFARFA
VS
NeobpoNeobpo
RFA

RFA

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.RFA.com
739/1000Moderate

RFA is a global IT, regulated, financial cloud, and cyber-security provider to the financial services and alternative investment sectors. We take pride in redefining the future of technological support. Through our R&D, DevOps, automation, and machine-learning, RFA prov...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:585
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Neobpo

Neobpo

Rua Pais Leme, 14, São Paulo, SP, BR, 05424-010

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.neobpo
771/1000Fair

Somos especializados em integrar tecnologia com inteligência humana, oferecendo soluções digitais que promovem transformação e eficiência operacional. Nosso foco é gerar valor por meio de resultados reais, utilizando inteligência digital para atender às necessidades esp...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,245
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
RFA

RFA

-
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
Neobpo

Neobpo

-
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 RFA in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Neobpo in 2026.

Incidents

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

RFA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Neobpo 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...
RFA

RFA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
RFA541083025
Neobpo

Neobpo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66339
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libsoup. After a CONNECT tunnel is established through an HTTP proxy, libsoup incorrectly attaches the Proxy-Authorization header to subsequent HTTPS requests sent through that tunnel to the destination server. This allows the destination server to capture proxy credentials, leading to information disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-24
UPDATED
Date2026-07-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66338
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libsoup. The chunked transfer encoding parser uses a permissive parsing function for chunk sizes that silently accepts inputs violating RFC 9112, including leading whitespace, plus sign prefixes, and trailing invalid characters. When libsoup operates behind a strict frontend proxy, this parsing differential can be exploited to smuggle HTTP requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-24
UPDATED
Date2026-07-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-66337
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libsoup. An unsigned integer underflow in the soup_filter_input_stream_read_until() function causes a heap buffer over-read when parsing multipart HTTP responses. A malicious HTTP server can exploit this by sending a crafted multipart response, potentially causing the client application to crash or disclose sensitive heap memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-24
UPDATED
Date2026-07-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-61892
SUMMARY

Weintek cMT3092X HMI allows a non-privileged user to modify tokens to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-24
UPDATED
Date2026-07-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-61886
SUMMARY

Weintek cMT3092X HMI stores user account passwords in plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-24
UPDATED
Date2026-07-24
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:H/I:N/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: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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8