Comparison Overview

FlexBooker

VS

Cisco

FlexBooker

Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 700 and 749

FlexBooker is a company based out of United States.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 2
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Cisco

Tasman Way, None, San Jose, CA, US, 95134
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 550 and 599

Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its customers, partners and communities to unlock innovation, enhance productivity and strengthen digital resilience. With purpose at its core, Cisco remains committed to creating a more connected and inclusive future for all.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 94,948
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
15
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/Flexbooker.jpeg
FlexBooker
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
FlexBooker
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cisco
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FlexBooker in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Cisco has 3388.37% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — FlexBooker (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FlexBooker cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/Flexbooker.jpeg
FlexBooker
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2021
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploited Vulnerabilities (unspecified), Phishing/Social Engineering (likely), DDoS Attacks, Threatening Calls to Executives
Motivation: Financial Gain (ransomware proceeds, access sales)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation (Cisco ASA), Malware Implantation, Command Execution, Potential Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote, Network-based, Crafted Input Injection
Blog: Blog

FAQ

FlexBooker company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cisco company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cisco company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to FlexBooker company.

In the current year, Cisco company has reported more cyber incidents than FlexBooker company.

Cisco company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while FlexBooker company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cisco company has disclosed at least one data breach, while FlexBooker company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Cisco company and FlexBooker company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Cisco company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while FlexBooker company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cisco company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to FlexBooker company.

Cisco company employs more people globally than FlexBooker company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds HIPAA certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor Cisco holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to 1.10.4, some of HedgeDoc's OAuth2 endpoints for social login providers such as Google, GitHub, GitLab, Facebook or Dropbox lack CSRF protection, since they don't send a state parameter and verify the response using this parameter. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.10.4.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

Langflow versions up to and including 1.6.9 contain a chained vulnerability that enables account takeover and remote code execution. An overly permissive CORS configuration (allow_origins='*' with allow_credentials=True) combined with a refresh token cookie configured as SameSite=None allows a malicious webpage to perform cross-origin requests that include credentials and successfully call the refresh endpoint. An attacker-controlled origin can therefore obtain fresh access_token / refresh_token pairs for a victim session. Obtained tokens permit access to authenticated endpoints — including built-in code-execution functionality — allowing the attacker to execute arbitrary code and achieve full system compromise.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
Description

A vulnerability was detected in xerrors Yuxi-Know up to 0.4.0. This vulnerability affects the function OtherEmbedding.aencode of the file /src/models/embed.py. Performing manipulation of the argument health_url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The patch is named 0ff771dc1933d5a6b78f804115e78a7d8625c3f3. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor responded with a vulnerability confirmation and a list of security measures they have established already (e.g. disabled URL parsing, disabled URL upload mode, removed URL-to-markdown conversion).

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Rarlab RAR App up to 7.11 Build 127 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.rarlab.rar. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. Attacks of this nature are highly complex. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 7.20 build 128 is able to mitigate this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor responded very professional: "This is the real vulnerability affecting RAR for Android only. WinRAR and Unix RAR versions are not affected. We already fixed it in RAR for Android 7.20 build 128 and we publicly mentioned it in that version changelog. (...) To avoid confusion among users, it would be useful if such disclosure emphasizes that it is RAR for Android only issue and WinRAR isn't affected."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.1
Severity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 2.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in ZSPACE Q2C NAS up to 1.1.0210050. Affected by this issue is the function zfilev2_api.OpenSafe of the file /v2/file/safe/open of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. This manipulation of the argument safe_dir causes command injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 9.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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