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

Comparison Overview

S-Communication Services GmbHS-Communication Services GmbH
VS
Akamai TechnologiesAkamai Technologies
S-Communication Services GmbH

S-Communication Services GmbH

Friedrichstraße 50, Berlin, 10117, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
770/1000Fair

S-Com ist Transformationstreiber und zentraler Dienstleister der Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe. Gemeinsam arbeiten wir an der laufenden Verbesserung etablierter Standards und setzen dort neue, wo wir Markenerlebnis und Kundenreise weiter optimieren können. Wir begleiten Insti...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:514
Subsidiaries:43
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

8 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, US, 02142

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.akamai.com
732/1000Moderate

At Akamai, we make life better for billions of people, billions of times a day. Every day, billions of people around the world connect with their favorite brands to shop online, play the latest video games, log into mobile banking apps, learn remotely, share videos wi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,327
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
S-Communication Services GmbH

S-Communication Services GmbH

-
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
Akamai Technologies

Akamai 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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for S-Communication Services GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Akamai Technologies has 92.31% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - S-Communication Services GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

S-Communication Services GmbH 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 - Akamai Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akamai Technologies 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...
S-Communication Services GmbH

S-Communication Services GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TOLTELAKA1777389934
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AKA1776515140
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
UNIAKA1773995078

FAQ

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