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

Comparison Overview

Serasa ExperianSerasa Experian
VS
GLGGLG
Serasa Experian

Serasa Experian

Avenida das Nações Unidas, 14.401, São Paulo, 04794-000, BR

Last Update: 10/04/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Somos uma Datatech, líder global em soluções de inteligência para análise de riscos e oportunidades com foco nas jornadas de crédito, autenticação e prevenção à fraude. Temos presença global com expertise local, estamos em 30 países e atuamos há 55 anos no mercado bra...

NAICS:519
NAICS Definition:Other Information Services
Employees:7,030
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
GLG

GLG

60 East 42nd Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY, US, 10165

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://glginsights.com
733/1000Moderate

GLG is the world’s largest insight network. We connect decision makers to the right experts so they can act with the confidence that comes from true clarity and have what it takes to get ahead. Our network of experts is the world’s largest source of first-hand expertise...

NAICS:519
NAICS Definition:Other Information Services
Employees:12,148
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Serasa Experian

Serasa Experian

-
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
GLG

GLG

-
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 Information Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Serasa Experian in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GLG in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Serasa Experian (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Serasa Experian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

GLG 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...
Serasa Experian

Serasa Experian

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SER1775860315
GLG

GLG

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GLG128072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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