Comparison Overview

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

VS

Red Hat

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics

300 Riverpark Drive, North Reading, MA, US, 01864
Last Update: 2025-11-27

On the Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics Team, we build dynamic partnerships between people and intelligent machines. This intricate collaboration helps Amazon fulfill orders with unmatched accuracy. Since we began working with robotics, we've added over a million new jobs worldwide. Working in symphony with our robotic technology, employees have the opportunity to extend their technical capabilities by working alongside some of the industry’s most advanced technologies. This includes our fleet of autonomous mobile robots, sophisticated control software, and technologies like language perception, machine learning, object recognition, and semantic understanding of commands. These technologies help employees deliver an ever-improving customer and employee experience, as well as improve the safety of our facilities. Explore opportunities across the entire Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics team to find the right fit for you.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 14,418
Subsidiaries: 88
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
5

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, US, 27601
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 650 and 699

Red Hat is the world’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
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amazon-fulfillment-technologies-robotics.jpeg
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics
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 Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Red Hat has 581.82% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — 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/amazon-fulfillment-technologies-robotics.jpeg
Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Exposed Docker API, Misconfigured AWS EC2 Instances, Python Docker SDK
Motivation: Financial Gain, Disruption, Cybercrime-as-a-Service
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Backend Update Bug
Blog: Blog
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

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Red Hat company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Red Hat company.

In the current year, Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company has reported more cyber incidents than Red Hat company.

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Red Hat company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Red Hat company and Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Red Hat company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company and Red Hat company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Red Hat company.

Red Hat company employs more people globally than Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Amazon Fulfillment Technologies & Robotics nor Red Hat holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H