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

Comparison Overview

Appier (Korea)Appier (Korea)
VS
Algar TechAlgar Tech
Appier (Korea)

Appier (Korea)

서울특별시 강남구 테헤란로 82길 14(대치동, 청풍빌딩) 6층, 서울, KR

Last Update: 29/01/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

[회사소개] 애피어는 인공지능(AI)을 활용해 비즈니스 의사결정을 강화하는 서비스형 소프트웨어(SaaS) 기업입니다. 애피어는 AI 보편화라는 비전을 토대로 2012년에 설립되었습니다. 애피어의 미션은 지능화 소프트웨어로 AI를 활용해 ROI를 높이는 것입니다. 현재 아시아태평양, 유럽, 미국에 17개의 지사를 운영하고 있으며, 도쿄증권거래소(Tokyo Stock Exchange)에 상장되었습니다. 더 자세한 정보는 애피어 공식 홈페이지 www.appier.com 에서 확인할 수...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Algar Tech

Algar Tech

Avenida Floriano Peixoto, Uberlândia, 38405-184, BR

Last Update: 02/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://algartech.com
778/1000Fair

Somos a Algar Tech CX. Com 26 anos de mercado, atuamos como parceira de negócio para a transformação digital de grandes corporações. Nosso portfólio possui serviços de Relacionamento com o Cliente, que visam melhorar a experiência dos consumidores. Somos mais de 7 mil a...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,243
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Appier (Korea)

Appier (Korea)

-
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
Algar Tech

Algar Tech

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Appier (Korea) in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Algar Tech in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Appier (Korea) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Appier (Korea) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Algar Tech (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Algar Tech cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Appier (Korea)

Appier (Korea)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Algar Tech

Algar Tech

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9