Comparison Overview
Alpha Reply

Alpha Reply
38 Grosvenor Gardens, London, SW1W 0EB, GB
Last Update: 09/01/2026
Our mission is to help organizations successfully embed AI solutions and to become truly data-driven. AI and advanced analytics have had a major transformational impact on many businesses, specifically the financial services and automotive industry. We work with many en...

Zebra Technologies
3 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL, US, 60069
Last Update: 03/04/2026
Zebra provides the foundation for intelligent operations with an award-winning portfolio of connected frontline, asset visibility and automation solutions. Organizations globally across retail, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, healthcare, and other industries r...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Alpha Reply







Zebra Technologies






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Alpha Reply in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Zebra Technologies in 2026.
Incident History - Alpha Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Alpha Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Zebra Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Zebra Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Alpha Reply

Zebra Technologies
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.