Comparison Overview

APIsec

VS

Reply

APIsec

845 Market St, San Francisco, California, US
Last Update: 2025-12-27
Between 650 and 699

The APIsec security testing platform discovers the most serious API vulnerabilities that lead to data theft and compromise. APIsec automatically creates and runs thousands of attack playbooks, custom-generated for each unique API, to find security vulnerabilities and data logic flaws BEFORE production. The zero-touch deployment model requires no source code access, no agents, and nothing inline. APIsec runs at the speed of DevOps, alerting security teams and developers immediately of new vulnerabilities in the CI/CD pipeline, ensuring all API code is continuously validated.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 45
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Reply

C.so Francia, 110, Turin, undefined, 10143, IT
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

Reply [EXM, STAR: REY] specialises in the design and implementation of solutions based on new communication channels and digital media. As a network of highly specialised companies, Reply defines and develops business models enabled by the new models of AI, big data, cloud computing, digital media and the internet of things. Reply delivers consulting, system integration and digital services to organisations across the telecom and media; industry and services; banking and insurance; and public sectors.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 16,329
Subsidiaries: 117
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/apisec.jpeg
APIsec
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/reply.jpeg
Reply
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
APIsec
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Reply
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

APIsec has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Reply in 2025.

Incident History — APIsec (X = Date, Y = Severity)

APIsec cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/apisec.jpeg
APIsec
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unprotected Database
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/reply.jpeg
Reply
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Reply company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to APIsec company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

APIsec company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Reply company has not reported any.

In the current year, APIsec company has reported more cyber incidents than Reply company.

Neither Reply company nor APIsec company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

APIsec company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Reply company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Reply company nor APIsec company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither APIsec company nor Reply company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Reply company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to APIsec company.

Reply company employs more people globally than APIsec company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds HIPAA certification.

Neither APIsec nor Reply holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to version 2.0.0, in self-hosted n8n instances where the Code node runs in legacy (non-task-runner) JavaScript execution mode, authenticated users with workflow editing access can invoke internal helper functions from within the Code node. This allows a workflow editor to perform actions on the n8n host with the same privileges as the n8n process, including: reading files from the host filesystem (subject to any file-access restrictions configured on the instance and OS/container permissions), and writing files to the host filesystem (subject to the same restrictions). This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0. Workarounds for this issue involve limiting file operations by setting N8N_RESTRICT_FILE_ACCESS_TO to a dedicated directory (e.g., ~/.n8n-files) and ensure it contains no sensitive data, keeping N8N_BLOCK_FILE_ACCESS_TO_N8N_FILES=true (default) to block access to .n8n and user-defined config files, and disabling high-risk nodes (including the Code node) using NODES_EXCLUDE if workflow editors are not fully trusted.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. From version 1.0.0 to before 2.0.0, a sandbox bypass vulnerability exists in the Python Code Node that uses Pyodide. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands on the host system running n8n, using the same privileges as the n8n process. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0. Workarounds for this issue involve disabling the Code Node by setting the environment variable NODES_EXCLUDE: "[\"n8n-nodes-base.code\"]", disabling Python support in the Code node by setting the environment variable N8N_PYTHON_ENABLED=false, which was introduced in n8n version 1.104.0, and configuring n8n to use the task runner based Python sandbox via the N8N_RUNNERS_ENABLED and N8N_NATIVE_PYTHON_RUNNER environment variables.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

LMDeploy is a toolkit for compressing, deploying, and serving LLMs. Prior to version 0.11.1, an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists in lmdeploy where torch.load() is called without the weights_only=True parameter when loading model checkpoint files. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the victim's machine when they load a malicious .bin or .pt model file. This issue has been patched in version 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to version 1.114.0, a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability may occur in n8n when using the “Respond to Webhook” node. When this node responds with HTML content containing executable scripts, the payload may execute directly in the top-level window, rather than within the expected sandbox introduced in version 1.103.0. This behavior can enable a malicious actor with workflow creation permissions to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the n8n editor interface. This issue has been patched in version 1.114.0. Workarounds for this issue involve restricting workflow creation and modification privileges to trusted users only, avoiding use of untrusted HTML responses in the “Respond to Webhook” node, and using an external reverse proxy or HTML sanitizer to filter responses that include executable scripts.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Yealink T21P_E2 Phone 52.84.0.15 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal. A remote normal privileged attacker can read arbitrary files via a crafted request result read function of the diagnostic component.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N