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

Comparison Overview

Social Security WorksSocial Security Works
VS
UNICEFUNICEF
Social Security Works

Social Security Works

N/A

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
699/1000Weak

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:5
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
UNICEF

UNICEF

3 United Nations Plaza, New York, 10017, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.unicef.org/
828/1000Good

UNICEF works in some of the world’s toughest places, to reach the world’s most disadvantaged children. To save their lives. To defend their rights. To help them fulfill their potential. Across 190 countries and territories, we work for every child, everywhere, every d...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:48,136
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Social Security Works

Social Security Works

-
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
UNICEF

UNICEF

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

Social Security Works has 34.21% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for UNICEF in 2026.

Incidents

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

Social Security Works cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

UNICEF 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...
Social Security Works

Social Security Works

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SOC1770199171
UNICEF

UNICEF

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
UNI161313423

FAQ

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