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

Comparison Overview

UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the CongoUNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
VS
American Red CrossAmerican Red Cross
UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

N/A

Last Update: 15/02/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

UNICEF has been working with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1963 to promote the rights and well-being of every child. Together with our partners, we help the most vulnerable children to access to quality health services, nutrition, water an...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:405
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
American Red Cross

American Red Cross

430 17th St NW, Washington, 20006, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.redcross.org
763/1000Fair

The American Red Cross prevents and alleviates human suffering in the face of emergencies by mobilizing the power of volunteers and the generosity of donors. Each day, thousands of people – people just like you – provide compassionate care to those in need. Our networ...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:33,242
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

-
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
American Red Cross

American Red Cross

-
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)

No incidents recorded for UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for American Red Cross in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - American Red Cross (X = Date, Y = Severity)

American Red Cross 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...
UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

UNICEF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
American Red Cross

American Red Cross

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
AME15579222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9