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

Comparison Overview

Adobe AcrobatAdobe Acrobat
VS
Alibaba GroupAlibaba Group
Adobe Acrobat

Adobe Acrobat

N/A

Last Update: 22/07/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

Create and edit PDFs. Collaborate with ease. E-sign documents and collect signatures. Get everything done in one app, wherever you work. Acrobat’s got it.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:7
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Alibaba Group

Alibaba Group

969 West Wen Yi Road, Hangzhou, 311121, CN

Last Update: 12/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.alibabagroup.com
749/1000Moderate

🌍Alibaba Group is on a mission to make it easy to do business anywhere! Guided by our passion and imagination, we’re leading the way in AI, cloud computing and e-commerce. We aim to build the future infrastructure of commerce, and we aspire to be a good company that l...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:84,600
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Adobe Acrobat

Adobe Acrobat

-
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
Alibaba Group

Alibaba Group

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Adobe Acrobat has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Alibaba Group has 292.16% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Adobe Acrobat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Adobe Acrobat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Alibaba Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alibaba Group 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...
Adobe Acrobat

Adobe Acrobat

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADO1784744632
Alibaba Group

Alibaba Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ALIFAS1784996806
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ALI1773938860
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JUNALI1773930337

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8