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

Comparison Overview

The Locklyn at Olympia FieldsThe Locklyn at Olympia Fields
VS
CoStar GroupCoStar Group
The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

undefined, Oconomowoc, WI, 53066, US

Last Update: 14/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.thelocklyn.com/
762/1000Fair

The Locklyn is the ideal retreat for Oconomowoc residents after a day by the lake or an afternoon exploring local restaurants and retail. Our Oconomowoc apartments make it easy to access work, school, eats, and entertainment while keeping you just minutes from the lush ...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

1201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia, US, 22209

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.costargroup.com
793/1000Fair

CoStar Group (NASDAQ: CSGP) is a global leader in commercial real estate information, analytics, online marketplaces, and 3D digital twin technology. Founded in 1986, CoStar Group is dedicated to digitizing the world’s real estate, empowering all people to discover prop...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,942
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

-
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
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Locklyn at Olympia Fields in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CoStar Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - The Locklyn at Olympia Fields (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Locklyn at Olympia Fields 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 - CoStar Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CoStar Group 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...
The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

The Locklyn at Olympia Fields

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CoStar Group

CoStar Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA