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

Comparison Overview

29CM29CM
VS
Akamai TechnologiesAkamai Technologies
29CM

29CM

성동구 아차산로13길 11, 서울시, KR

Last Update: 30/08/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.29cm.co.kr/home/
787/1000Fair

29CM[이십구센티미터]는 '고객의 더 나은 선택을 돕는다'는 미션을 전개하는 취향 셀렉트샵입니다. 2011년 이 독특한 미션으로부터 출발한 29CM는 우리만의 방식으로 브랜드, 고객 모두에게 대체 불가능한 커머스 플랫폼을 만들어 나가고 있습니다. 29CM는 ‘상품’이 아닌 ‘콘텐츠와 스토리’를 조명합니다. 모두가 저렴한 상품, 많은 상품을 외칠 때 우리는 고객들에게 고유한 가치를 드리기 위해 치열하게 고민합니다. 최신 유행 아이템을 앞다투어 소개하기보다, 소비자가 알지 못했던...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:182
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

8 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, 02142, US

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.akamai.com
738/1000Moderate

At Akamai, we make life better for billions of people, billions of times a day. Every day, billions of people around the world connect with their favorite brands to shop online, play the latest video games, log into mobile banking apps, learn remotely, share videos wi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,673
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
29CM

29CM

-
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
Akamai Technologies

Akamai 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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

29CM has 37.89% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Akamai Technologies has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - 29CM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

29CM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Akamai Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akamai Technologies 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...
29CM

29CM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MUS29C1788079914
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TOLTELAKA1777389934
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AKA1776515140
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MARAKA1789468190

FAQ

Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between 29CM company and Akamai Technologies company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between 29CM and Akamai Technologies, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between 29CM and Akamai Technologies, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - 29CM or Akamai Technologies ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - 29CM or Akamai Technologies ?
Between 29CM and Akamai Technologies, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between 29CM and Akamai Technologies, 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