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

Comparison Overview

Workingfor.beWorkingfor.be
VS
RijkswaterstaatRijkswaterstaat
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Simon Bolivarlaan 30, Brussels, 1000, BE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.workingfor.be
782/1000Fair

Workingfor.be is the job platform of the federal administration. Here, you will find a wide variety of jobs in different fields of profession. Every day thousands of our employees help build tomorrow's society. When you choose the federal administration, you choos...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:17,104
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

Koningskade 4, Den Haag, 2500 EX, NL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

Rijkswaterstaat is de uitvoeringsorganisatie van het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. We beheren en ontwikkelen de rijkswegen, -vaarwegen en –wateren en zetten in op een duurzame leefomgeving. Samen met andere organisaties werken we aan een land dat bescher...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:12,096
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

-
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
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

-
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 Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Workingfor.be in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rijkswaterstaat in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Workingfor.be (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workingfor.be 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 - Rijkswaterstaat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rijkswaterstaat 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...
Workingfor.be

Workingfor.be

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
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:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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