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

Comparison Overview

WM ReplyWM Reply
VS
GFT TechnologiesGFT Technologies
WM Reply

WM Reply

160 Victoria Street, London, England, SW1E 5LB, GB

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://wmreply.com
751/1000Fair

We’re WM Reply and we create world-class intranets, collaboration platforms, and business solutions built on Microsoft SharePoint and Microsoft 365. We’re all about helping organisations work better, faster, and smarter. ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:158
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Schelmenwasenstr. 34, Stuttgart, 70567, DE

Last Update: 20/09/2026

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

GFT Technologies is an AI-centric global digital transformation company. We design advanced data and AI transformation solutions, modernize technology architectures and develop next-generation core systems for industry leaders in Banking, Insurance, Manufacturing and Ro...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:13,147
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
WM Reply

WM Reply

-
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
GFT Technologies

GFT 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)

No incidents recorded for WM Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for GFT Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - WM Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WM Reply 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 - GFT Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GFT Technologies 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...
WM Reply

WM Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
GFT Technologies

GFT Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-113705
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in a2aproject a2a-rs up to 0.4.3. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file a2a-server/src/error.rs. Executing a manipulation can lead to information exposure through error message. The attack can be executed remotely. This patch is called 713b943af94ab2d521d483b841618b97a2e78a4d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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-2026-9825
SUMMARY

IBM Cyber Fraud 1.0.0 through 1.0.2 has a missing secure attribute allowing sensitive cookies to be transmitted over unencrypted connections, potentially enabling an attacker to intercept session data through network-based attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-94402
SUMMARY

IBM Carbon Charts 0.4.0 through 1.27.19 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The MeterChart component's Title.truncateTitle() function re-inserts a substring of user-supplied label text into the DOM via an unsanitized innerHTML write when the title exceeds the available container width. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93888
SUMMARY

IBM Sterling Connect Direct for Unix 6.4.0.0 through 6.4.0.6 and 6.3.0.0 through 6.3.0.7 apnotify utility is vulnerable to a code injection due to insufficient validation of user input.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93744
SUMMARY

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
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