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

Comparison Overview

TCS Retail and Consumer GoodsTCS Retail and Consumer Goods
VS
Diebold NixdorfDiebold Nixdorf
TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

N/A

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.tcs.com
752/1000Fair

This page highlights TCS’ expertise and innovation in retail and consumer goods. Trusted by 10 of the top 10 retailers and 7 of the top 10 consumer goods companies in the world, we help businesses become perpetually adaptive enterprises innovating faster, operating smar...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

350 Orchard Ave NE, North Canton, 44720, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://DieboldNixdorf.com
673/1000Weak

Diebold Nixdorf automates, digitizes and transforms the way people bank and shop. Its integrated solutions connect digital and physical channels conveniently, securely and efficiently for millions of consumers every day. As an innovation partner for nearly all of the ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:20,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

-
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
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

-
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 TCS Retail and Consumer Goods in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Diebold Nixdorf in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - TCS Retail and Consumer Goods (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TCS Retail and Consumer Goods 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 - Diebold Nixdorf (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Diebold Nixdorf 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...
TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

TCS Retail and Consumer Goods

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIE1772015252
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
DIE000081024
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DIE84429723

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1