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

Comparison Overview

AcerAcer
VS
Western DigitalWestern Digital
Acer

Acer

8F, 88, Sec. 1, Xin Tai Wu Rd., Sec 1, XiZhi District, New Taipei City, TW, 221

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.acer.com/
671/1000Weak

Founded in 1976, Acer is one of the world's top ICT companies with a presence in more than 160 countries. As Acer evolves with the industry and changing lifestyles, it is focused on enabling a world where hardware, software and services will fuse with one another, creat...

NAICS:3341
NAICS Definition:Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
Employees:9,224
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
4
Western Digital

Western Digital

5601 Great Oaks Parkway, San Jose, CA, US, 95138

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
773/1000Fair

At Western Digital, our vision is to unleash the power and value of data. For decades, we have been at the forefront of storage innovation, which fuels our mission to be the market leader in data storage, delivering solutions for now and the future. We are committed to ...

NAICS:3341
NAICS Definition:Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
Employees:22,591
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Acer

Acer

-
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
Western Digital

Western Digital

-
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 Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Acer has 45.95% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Western Digital in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Acer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Acer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Western Digital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Western Digital 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...
Acer

Acer

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ACE1780561538
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ACE605061325
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ACE3143723
Western Digital

Western Digital

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
WES5892358093025
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
WES5632056093025
🔒 Incident : Breach
WES04621023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8