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

Comparison Overview

AgnikAgnik
VS
IGTIGT
Agnik

Agnik

8840 Stanford Blvd. STE. 1300, Columbia, 21045, US

Last Update: 26/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.agnik.com
733/1000Moderate

Agnik is a Big Data Vehicle Analytics software company with wide range of telematics products and platforms for the consumer, fleet, insurance, vehicle-repair-services and automotive OEM markets. Agnik’s onboard data stream mining software manages many in-vehicle device...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:30
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
IGT

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.IGT.com
568/1000Very Poor

IGT is a leading global provider of gaming, digital and financial technology solutions, formed through the combination of International Game Technology PLC’s Gaming & Digital Business and Everi Holdings Inc. IGT’s offering spans gaming machines, game content and systems...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:10,303
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Agnik

Agnik

-
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
IGT

IGT

-
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)

Agnik has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IGT in 2026.

Incidents

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

Agnik cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

IGT 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...
Agnik

Agnik

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AGN1779813567
IGT

IGT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2192021112025
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2502025112125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57990
SUMMARY

Files or directories accessible to external parties in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-26
UPDATED
Date2026-07-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-57989
SUMMARY

Origin validation error in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-26
UPDATED
Date2026-07-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-57978
SUMMARY

Origin validation error in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-26
UPDATED
Date2026-07-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-17497
SUMMARY

NoteGen before 0.32.0 grants the Tauri shell plugin shell:allow-execute capability for bash, python, and python3 with arbitrary arguments in the default desktop capabilities. JavaScript running in the application webview can therefore invoke plugin:shell|execute to run attacker-controlled operating system commands with the privileges of the NoteGen process. In combination with script execution in the webview (for example via chat XSS), this enables full remote code execution on the user's machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-26
UPDATED
Date2026-07-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-17496
SUMMARY

NoteGen before 0.32.0 renders AI chat responses with markdown-it configured with html:true and injects the result into the DOM via dangerouslySetInnerHTML in chat-preview, without HTML sanitization and with CSP set to null. Attacker-controlled content that reaches the model prompt (for example a malicious skill REFERENCE.md that instructs the model to emit HTML) can cause the model response to include executable markup such as an img onerror handler. When the user views the chat response, that markup runs as JavaScript in the privileged Tauri webview, enabling arbitrary script execution in the application context (cross-site scripting).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-26
UPDATED
Date2026-07-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8