Comparison Overview

AltaReturn

VS

Red Hat

AltaReturn

9350 South Dixie Hwy,, Miami, Florida, 33156, US
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900

Strong

AltaReturn is now Allvue Systems. Follow us: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allvuesystems/

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, US, 27601
Last Update: 2025-10-02 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900

Red Hat is the worldโ€™s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions, using a community-powered approach to deliver high-performing Linux, hybrid cloud, edge, and Kubernetes technologies. We hire creative, passionate people who are ready to contribute their ideas, help solve complex problems, and make an impact. Opportunities are open. Join us.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 19,569
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/altareturn.jpeg
AltaReturn
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
AltaReturn
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Red Hat
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AltaReturn in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Red Hat has 769.57% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” AltaReturn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AltaReturn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Red Hat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/altareturn.jpeg
AltaReturn
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (likely), Insider Threat (possible), Exploitation of Vulnerabilities (unconfirmed)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Notoriety, Data Theft for Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: compromised consulting repositories, stolen credentials/API keys, supply chain exploitation
Motivation: financial gain (extortion), strategic disruption, potential nation-state intelligence collection, weaponizing political timing
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Authenticated remote attacker exploiting improper permission assignments in OpenShift AI
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both AltaReturn company and Red Hat company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Red Hat company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas AltaReturn company has not reported any.

In the current year, Red Hat company has reported more cyber incidents than AltaReturn company.

Neither Red Hat company nor AltaReturn company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Red Hat company has disclosed at least one data breach, while AltaReturn company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Red Hat company nor AltaReturn company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Red Hat company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while AltaReturn company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Red Hat company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to AltaReturn company.

Red Hat company employs more people globally than AltaReturn company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki Cargo extension allows SQL Injection.This issue affects MediaWiki Cargo extension: 1.39, 1.43, 1.44.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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:N/AU:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki QuizGame extension allows Stored XSS.This issue affects MediaWiki QuizGame extension: 1.39, 1.43, 1.44.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki PollNY extension allows Stored XSS.This issue affects MediaWiki PollNY extension: 1.39, 1.43, 1.44.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:H/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki WebAuthn extension allows Stored XSS.This issue affects MediaWiki WebAuthn extension: 1.39, 1.43, 1.44.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/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:N/R:U/V:C/RE:L/U:Amber
Description

pyquokka is a framework for making data lakes work for time series. In versions 0.3.1 and prior, the FlightServer class directly uses pickle.loads() to deserialize action bodies received from Flight clients without any sanitization or validation in the do_action() method. The vulnerable code is located in pyquokka/flight.py at line 283 where arbitrary data from Flight clients is directly passed to pickle.loads(). When FlightServer is configured to listen on 0.0.0.0, this allows attackers across the entire network to perform arbitrary remote code execution by sending malicious pickled payloads through the set_configs action. Additional vulnerability points exist in the cache_garbage_collect, do_put, and do_get functions where pickle.loads is used to deserialize untrusted remote data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H