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

Comparison Overview

Saint-Gobain Research IndiaSaint-Gobain Research India
VS
Technical University of MunichTechnical University of Munich
Saint-Gobain Research India

Saint-Gobain Research India

No.1 F1 Kanagam Road, Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600113, IN

Last Update: 18/02/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Established in 2012, Saint-Gobain Research India (SGR India) stands as a beacon among the eight cross-functional research and development centres within the distinguished Saint-Gobain Group. Situated within the IIT Madras Research Park in Chennai, this meticulously craf...

NAICS:5417
NAICS Definition:Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees:342
Subsidiaries:88
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Technical University of Munich

Technical University of Munich

Arcisstraße 21, München, Munich, Bavaria, DE, 80333

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tum.de/
781/1000Fair

Our university combines top-class facilities for cutting-edge research with unique learning opportunities for 52,000 students. Whether our researchers are investigating the origins of life, matter and the universe or looking for solutions to the major challenges for our...

NAICS:5417
NAICS Definition:Scientific Research and Development Services
Employees:11,505
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Saint-Gobain Research India

Saint-Gobain Research India

-
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
Technical University of Munich

Technical University of Munich

-
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 Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Saint-Gobain Research India in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Technical University of Munich in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Saint-Gobain Research India (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Saint-Gobain Research India cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Technical University of Munich (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Technical University of Munich 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...
Saint-Gobain Research India

Saint-Gobain Research India

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Technical University of Munich

Technical University of Munich

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2