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

Comparison Overview

TrakaTraka
VS
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e ServiçosGocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços
Traka

Traka

30 Stilebrook Road, Olney, England, MK46 5, GB

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.traka.com
760/1000Fair

Traka is the global leader in intelligent management solutions for keys and equipment. Our solutions help all types of organizations better control their important assets, improving productivity and accountability, and reducing risk in critical processes. We continuou...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:328
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Avenida Professor Francisco Morato 525, São Paulo, 05513-000, BR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gocil.com.br
782/1000Fair

One of the largest companies in the professional services and security markets in Brazil. Formed by four branches, patrimonial security, personal security, electronic security and general services. Counting with around 16.000 employees, Gocil is present at several brazi...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:10,859
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Traka

Traka

-
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
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Traka in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços in 2026.

Incidents

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

Traka 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 - Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços 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...
Traka

Traka

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Gocil Tecnologia em Segurança e Serviços

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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