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

Comparison Overview

Amazon Web Services (AWS)Amazon Web Services (AWS)
VS
LexisNexisLexisNexis
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

410 Terry Ave N, Seattle, 98019, US

Last Update: 06/08/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://aws.amazon.com
559/1000Very Poor

Launched in 2006, Amazon Web Services (AWS) began exposing key infrastructure services to businesses in the form of web services -- now widely known as cloud computing. The ultimate benefit of cloud computing, and AWS, is the ability to leverage a new business model and...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:148,035
Subsidiaries:95
12-month incidents
23
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
5
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

230 Park Avenue, New York City, 10017, US

Last Update: 23/06/2026

View Profile

LexisNexis is a leading innovator of private, secure, and authoritative Legal AI solutions that help legal and business professionals draft full documents with ease, make informed decisions faster, and deliver outstanding work and improved outcomes, all powered by trust...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,705
Subsidiaries:72
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

-
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
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Amazon Web Services (AWS) has 1443.62% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

LexisNexis has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Amazon Web Services (AWS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amazon Web Services (AWS) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LexisNexis 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...
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AMASAL1786012333
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
RUB1785673407
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AMA1782541446
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RELLEX1772562253
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1772555037
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1782211793

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA