Comparison Overview

Microsoft

VS

Red Hat

Microsoft

Last Update: 2026-01-23
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://news.microsoft.com/

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of more than 220,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 229,445
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
5
View Profile

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, US, 27601
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 650 and 699
http://www.redhat.com

Red Hat is the world’s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions, using a community-powered approach to deliver high-performing Linux, hybrid cloud, edge, and Kubernetes technologies. We hire creative, passionate people who are ready to contribute their ideas, help solve complex problems, and make an impact. Opportunities are open. Join us.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 19,335
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/Microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
—
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/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
—
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
Microsoft
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Red Hat
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 32.89% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Hat in 2026.

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

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Red Hat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/Microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Account Takeovers, Ransomware Attacks
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Malicious Extensions
Motivation: Data harvesting, user profiling, and potential intellectual property theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (likely), Insider Threat (possible), Exploitation of Vulnerabilities (unconfirmed)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Notoriety, Data Theft for Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: compromised consulting repositories, stolen credentials/API keys, supply chain exploitation
Motivation: financial gain (extortion), strategic disruption, potential nation-state intelligence collection, weaponizing political timing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Authenticated remote attacker exploiting improper permission assignments in OpenShift AI
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Red Hat company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Red Hat company.

Microsoft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Red Hat company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Red Hat company and Microsoft company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Microsoft company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Red Hat company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Microsoft company and Red Hat company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Red Hat company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Red Hat company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Red Hat holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
References
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References
Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/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
References
Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.

Published
Date
2026-01-23
Updated
Date
2026-01-23
References