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

Comparison Overview

Ágiles AztecaÁgiles Azteca
VS
IntuitIntuit
Ágiles Azteca

Ágiles Azteca

Avenida Insurgentes Sur 3579, Bosque de Tlalpan, Distrito Federal 14266, MX

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
755/1000Fair

Ágiles Azteca es el brazo que habilita la agilidad dentro de Grupo Salinas. Con 7 años de experiencias exitosas agregamos valor a los equipos ágiles de los diferentes Despachos y Unidades de Negocio que conforman al Grupo para alcanzar sus objetivos a través de práctic...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Intuit

Intuit

2700 Coast Ave, Mountain View, California, US, 94043

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.intuit.com/
705/1000Moderate

Intuit is a global technology platform that helps our customers and communities overcome their most important financial challenges. Serving millions of customers worldwide with TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma and Mailchimp, we believe that everyone should have the op...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:17,447
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ágiles Azteca

Ágiles Azteca

-
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
Intuit

Intuit

-
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 Ágiles Azteca in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intuit in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ágiles Azteca (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ágiles Azteca cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Intuit 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...
Ágiles Azteca

Ágiles Azteca

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Intuit

Intuit

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INT241072725
🔒 Incident : Breach
INT620072825
🔒 Incident : Breach
INT411072925

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. 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
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2