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

Comparison Overview

AMD Channel PartnersAMD Channel Partners
VS
Samsung SemiconductorSamsung Semiconductor
AMD Channel Partners

AMD Channel Partners

N/A

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://http://www.amd.com
754/1000Fair

Welcome to our partner community! AMD Channel Partners is all about connecting with, sharing and empowering our partners who help us reach customers each and every day. You'll find insights, resources and collaboration opportunities that help you position, sell and supp...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Samsung Semiconductor

Samsung Semiconductor

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
695/1000Weak

Established in 1974 as a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, we’re proud to be recognized as one of the leading chip manufacturers in the world. Using our knowledge in semiconductor technology, our ambition is to spark the imagination of device manufacturers with top-of-...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:10,013
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AMD Channel Partners

AMD Channel Partners

-
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
Samsung Semiconductor

Samsung Semiconductor

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AMD Channel Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Samsung Semiconductor has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - AMD Channel Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AMD Channel Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Samsung Semiconductor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Semiconductor 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...
AMD Channel Partners

AMD Channel Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Samsung Semiconductor

Samsung Semiconductor

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
APPADV1771962047
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM2902029091525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9