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

Comparison Overview

Adobe Technical CommunicationAdobe Technical Communication
VS
GrabGrab
Adobe Technical Communication

Adobe Technical Communication

345 Park Ave, San Jose, 95110, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile

Adobe is changing the world through digital experiences. Our creative, marketing and document solutions empower everyone — from emerging artists to global brands — to bring digital creations to life and deliver them to the right person at the right moment for the best r...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:65
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Grab

Grab

3 Media Close, Singapore, 138498, SG

Last Update: 10/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://grab.careers
807/1000Good

Grab is Southeast Asia’s leading superapp, offering a suite of services consisting of deliveries, mobility, financial services, enterprise and others. Grabbers come from all over the world, and we are united by a common mission: to drive Southeast Asia forward by creati...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:57,733
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Adobe Technical Communication

Adobe Technical Communication

-
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
Grab

Grab

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Adobe Technical Communication in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grab in 2026.

Incidents

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

Adobe Technical Communication cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Grab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Adobe Technical Communication

Adobe Technical Communication

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADO1392213101625
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADO2292522101625
Grab

Grab

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105222
SUMMARY

The alexpechkarev/google-maps Laravel package through 12.16 disables TLS certificate verification by default because the bundled config sets ssl_verify_peer to FALSE, which is passed to CURLOPT_SSL_VERIFYPEER. On-path attackers can present any certificate to intercept Google Maps web-service requests, steal the API key from the query string, and tamper with responses.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105221
SUMMARY

The gist RubyGem before 6.1.0 contains an improper certificate validation vulnerability that allows on-path attackers to intercept HTTPS traffic because http_connection in lib/gist.rb sets VERIFY_NONE. Attackers can present any certificate to read or modify GitHub API traffic, stealing OAuth tokens and login credentials to read and modify the victim's gists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105220
SUMMARY

Twine 2 desktop through 2.12.0 contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability in importStories() that executes markup from imported story files in the editor window. Attackers can craft a story file whose script calls the twineElectron openWithScratchFile IPC bridge to write and open a .bat file, executing code as the user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
1.8
CVE-2026-105167
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file admin/donate.php. Executing a manipulation of the argument location can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105166
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in kishor-23 food-waste-management-system 411989e3ecb82895e53dca7865f72145f03d7d93/b3a70b2c492dc9904de5be1ad9389bd79b87f82c. The affected element is the function insert of the file fooddonateform.php of the component Food Donation Form. Performing a manipulation of the argument image-choice results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-04
UPDATED
Date2026-10-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9