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
NothingNothing
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
Nothing

Nothing

John Street, London, GB

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://nothing.tech
785/1000Fair

Nothing exists to make tech feel exciting again. We’re building a different kind of company, one that puts design, emotion, and human creativity at the heart of everything we do. From the way our products look to how they sound, feel, and function, we care about the de...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:28,896
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
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
Nothing

Nothing

-
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)

Nothing has 2.91% fewer 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 - Nothing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nothing 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.
Nothing

Nothing

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TANKRANOTMEDCOI1773311566

FAQ

Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH company and Nothing company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH and Nothing, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH and Nothing, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - S-Communication Services GmbH or Nothing ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - S-Communication Services GmbH or Nothing ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH and Nothing, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between S-Communication Services GmbH and Nothing, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1