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

Comparison Overview

Schouw Informatisering from ApteanSchouw Informatisering from Aptean
VS
LuxoftLuxoft
Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

Bredaseweg 172, Etten-Leur, Noord-Brabant, 4872 LA, NL

Last Update: 23/12/2025

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://aptean.com/nl-NL
749/1000Moderate

"We enable food companies to focus on running and improving their business"​ Sinds 1998 richt Schouw Informatisering, from Aptean zich volledig op het adviseren en automatiseren van bedrijven in de voedingsmiddelenbranche. Ondertussen zijn we uitgegroeid tot een intern...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:23
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Luxoft

Luxoft

Gubelstrasse 24, Zug, 6300, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.luxoft.com
807/1000Good

Luxoft, a DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC), is a digital strategy and software engineering firm providing bespoke technology solutions that drive business change for customers the world over. Acquired by U.S. company DXC Technology in 2019, Luxoft is a global operatio...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:15,550
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

-
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
Luxoft

Luxoft

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Schouw Informatisering from Aptean in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Luxoft in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Schouw Informatisering from Aptean (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Schouw Informatisering from Aptean 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 - Luxoft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Luxoft 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...
Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

Schouw Informatisering from Aptean

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Luxoft

Luxoft

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44541
SUMMARY

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. From version 2.33.0 to before version 2.84.5, there is a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via the fides_description override. This issue has been patched in version 2.84.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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-2026-49141
SUMMARY

WACRM prior to commit 73041bf contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the automation engine that allows authenticated attackers to access and modify contacts belonging to other tenants by supplying an arbitrary caller-controlled contact_id in the POST request body without tenant ownership verification. Attackers can exploit the service-role client that bypasses row-level security to modify victim contact fields including name, email, and company across tenant boundaries using only a known contact UUID.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47345
SUMMARY

Namespace attributes are not encoded correctly during HTML serialization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-47344
SUMMARY

When ALLOW_INSECURE_RAW_TEXT is enabled, whitespace-variant closing tags (e.g., </style\t>) are not recognized by the sanitizer but accepted by browsers as valid end tags, allowing subsequent content to escape sanitization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-46484
SUMMARY

Headplane is a feature-complete Web UI for Headscale. Prior to versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3, Headplane was vulnerable to a path traversal / authorization bypass in the Headscale API client used by node and user rename operations. This issue has been patched in versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8