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

Comparison Overview

Sandhills PacificSandhills Pacific
VS
GloboGlobo
Sandhills Pacific

Sandhills Pacific

N/A

Last Update: 28/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sandhills.com
753/1000Fair

As a subsidiary of Sandhills Global, Sandhills Pacific expands the company’s decades-long presence in the construction, agriculture, trucking, and aviation industries throughout Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia Pacific. Sandhills Pacific was established in Brisbane,...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Globo

Globo

Rua Lopes Quintas, 303, Rio de Janeiro, BR

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://vempraglobo.g.globo
811/1000Good

A globo é feita de gente que quer fazer diferente, fazer junto, fazer o futuro. Gente espalhada por todo o país (e mundo!) trabalhando com conteúdo, notícias, negócios, tecnologia e brasilidade de sobra. Canais na TV aberta e por assinatura, produtos digitais como gl...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:26,301
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sandhills Pacific

Sandhills Pacific

-
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
Globo

Globo

-
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 Media Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sandhills Pacific in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Globo in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sandhills Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sandhills Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Globo 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...
Sandhills Pacific

Sandhills Pacific

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Globo

Globo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8