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

Comparison Overview

Squid HTTP Proxy projectSquid HTTP Proxy project
VS
Gainwell TechnologiesGainwell Technologies
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

US

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.squid-cache.org
780/1000Fair

Squid is a caching proxy for the Web supporting HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, and more. It reduces bandwidth and improves response times by caching and reusing frequently-requested web pages. Squid has extensive access controls and makes a great server accelerator. It runs on most ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

United States, US

Last Update: 22/08/2026

View Profile
586/1000Very Poor

The people who build careers at Gainwell Technologies share one thing: they want their work to matter. Here, it does. We're the essential ingredient that makes Medicaid work. For more than 50 years, we've combined our sweeping scale and technology to turn complex polic...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:11,047
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

-
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
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

-
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)

Squid HTTP Proxy project has 32.43% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Gainwell Technologies has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Squid HTTP Proxy project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Squid HTTP Proxy project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gainwell Technologies 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...
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SQU1782148033
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SQU1782145878
Gainwell Technologies

Gainwell Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STAGAI1787430483
🔒 Incident : Breach
HARGAISOC1779481525
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAI1992519092625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84483
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8 contains an incomplete authentication bypass in encryptPass.json.php that allows unauthenticated attackers to compute valid HMAC tokens using the public site URL and current time. Attackers can forge authentication tokens by computing hash_hmac with the site's base URL as the key and submit arbitrary passwords to receive encrypted hashes, enabling offline precomputation attacks against stolen password databases.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84482
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through commit 9c39d8c8 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the get_domain() and isSameDomain() functions that fail to properly validate referer origins. Attackers can forge requests from sibling subdomains or unparseable long-gTLD origins to perform administrative ObjectYPT writes including live server configuration changes.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-84481
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo through 30.0 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MobileManager plugin getConfiguration endpoint that returns sensitive configuration data to unauthenticated visitors. Attackers can send an unauthenticated GET request to plugin/MobileManager/getConfiguration.json.php to obtain TLS private key file paths, socket configuration details, platform version, and debug flags enabling further targeted attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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-2026-84480
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo fails to validate password recovery token expiration in userRecoverPassSave.json.php, allowing attackers to use expired tokens to reset account passwords indefinitely. Attackers who obtain a recovery token can use it at any time to change the target account's password and gain full account access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84479
SUMMARY

WWBN AVideo (current e01e41ecc and earlier) makes three login-time security controls depend solely on the client-supplied User-Agent header. The isAVideoEncoder()/isAVideoMobileApp() checks match HTTP_USER_AGENT against a hardcoded literal ("AVideoEncoder"/"AVideoMobileApp") with no IP check or shared secret. An attacker who submits valid credentials and sets User-Agent: AVideoEncoder bypasses two-factor authentication, skips brute-force captcha escalation, and avoids being recorded in the login/device audit history. No patch is available at the time of publication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-01
UPDATED
Date2026-09-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9