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

Comparison Overview

Riga WaterfrontRiga Waterfront
VS
Shimao GroupShimao Group
Riga Waterfront

Riga Waterfront

Eksporta street 3A, Ziemelu rajons, Riga, 1010, LV

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://rigawaterfront.com/
753/1000Fair

Riga Waterfront transforms city living with luxury homes and public spaces. Nestled by the Daugava River, this sustainable development seamlessly blends history with modernity.

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:42
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Shimao Group

Shimao Group

N/A

Last Update: 02/07/2026

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

Shimao Group has entered the real estate industry since 1989, After more than 30 years of development, the Group has made its layout in more than 100 core development cities across China, involving real estate, commercial, property management, hotel, theme entertainmen...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:15
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Riga Waterfront

Riga Waterfront

-
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
Shimao Group

Shimao 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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Riga Waterfront in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Shimao Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Riga Waterfront (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Riga Waterfront 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 - Shimao Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shimao 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...
Riga Waterfront

Riga Waterfront

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Shimao Group

Shimao Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1