Comparison Overview

FlexBooker

VS

DoorDash

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

DoorDash

San Francisco, California, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01

At DoorDash, our mission to empower local economies shapes how our team members move quickly and always learn and reiterate to support merchants, Dashers and the communities we serve. We are a technology and logistics company that started with door-to-door delivery, and we are looking for team members who can help us go from a company that is known for delivering food to a company that people turn to for any and all goods. DoorDash is growing rapidly and changing constantly, which gives our team members the opportunity to share their unique perspectives, solve new challenges, and own their careers. Our leaders seek the truth and welcome big, hairy, audacious questions. We are grounded in our company values, and we make intentional decisions that are both logical and display empathy for our range of users—from Dashers to Merchants to Customers.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 74,124
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
2

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/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
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
DoorDash
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)

DoorDash has 830.23% 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 — DoorDash (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DoorDash 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/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Vendor Compromise, Credential Theft, Social Engineering
Motivation: Data Theft, Potential Fraud Enablement
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (Employee Targeted)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Phishing (Spear Phishing/Vishing), Compromised Credentials
Motivation: Data Theft for Follow-on Attacks (e.g., Spear Phishing, Vishing), Potential Financial Gain via Stolen Data
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

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

Neither DoorDash company nor FlexBooker company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

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

FlexBooker company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while DoorDash company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

DoorDash company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to FlexBooker company.

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

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash holds HIPAA certification.

Neither FlexBooker nor DoorDash 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