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

Comparison Overview

ADTADT
VS
Rover.comRover.com
ADT

ADT

1501 Yamato Road, Boca Raton, 33431, US

Last Update: 12/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.adt.com/
303/1000Critical

ADT is the most trusted name in smart home security, helping protect and connect what matters most at home and beyond. When Every Second Counts, Count on ADT 💙.

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:25,890
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
3
Rover.com

Rover.com

720 Olive Way, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.rover.com
792/1000Fair

At Rover, everyone has ownership of their work and the opportunity to make a true impact. We believe that being diverse and inclusive is key to our success and encourage every employee to share their unique perspective while being their true self. We believe everyone ...

NAICS:81
NAICS Definition:Other Services (except Public Administration)
Employees:11,132
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ADT

ADT

-
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
Rover.com

Rover.com

-
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 Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

ADT has 534.92% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Consumer Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rover.com in 2026.

Incidents

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

ADT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rover.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rover.com 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...
ADT

ADT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
CHA1779582281
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CARADTSALCUS1778027258
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADT1777934120
Rover.com

Rover.com

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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