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

Comparison Overview

Security JoesSecurity Joes
VS
Gendarmerie NationaleGendarmerie Nationale
Security Joes

Security Joes

Tel Aviv, 6415345, IL

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.securityjoes.com
698/1000Weak

Security Joes is a multi-layered Incident Response company that specializes in IR, MDR & Red Teaming. The company was established by security researchers to first and foremost generate resilience against highly complex cyberwarfare incidents, extract vital evidence and ...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:30
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Gendarmerie Nationale

Gendarmerie Nationale

4 rue Claude Bernard, Issy les Moulineaux, 92130, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
789/1000Fair

Force humaine de près de 100 000 hommes et femmes placée sous l’autorité du ministère de l’Intérieur, la Gendarmerie nationale est une institution militaire garante de la sécurité et de la paix de nos concitoyens, et de la protection de leurs biens. Elle assure des miss...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:32,674
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Security Joes

Security Joes

-
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
Gendarmerie Nationale

Gendarmerie Nationale

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Security Joes in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gendarmerie Nationale in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Security Joes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Security Joes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Gendarmerie Nationale (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gendarmerie Nationale 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...
Security Joes

Security Joes

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SEC215081225
Gendarmerie Nationale

Gendarmerie Nationale

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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