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

Comparison Overview

AQD by Comply365AQD by Comply365
VS
MeituanMeituan
AQD by Comply365

AQD by Comply365

Wellington, NZ

Last Update: 29/11/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

AQD by Comply365 specialise in safety and risk management, working alongside highly regulated industries who keep people, products and information moving. Designed to capture vital safety, compliance and risk data in a consistent and connected way, AQD supports you to c...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Meituan

Meituan

Wangjing International R&D Park, No.6 Wangjing East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CN, 100102

Last Update: 03/08/2026

View Profile
781/1000Fair

Adhering to the ‘Retail + Technology’ strategy, Meituan commits to its mission that 'We help people eat better, live better'. Since its establishment in March 2010, Meituan has advanced the digital upgrading of services and goods retail on both supply and demand sides....

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:41,472
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AQD by Comply365

AQD by Comply365

-
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
Meituan

Meituan

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AQD by Comply365 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Meituan in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - AQD by Comply365 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AQD by Comply365 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 - Meituan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Meituan 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...
AQD by Comply365

AQD by Comply365

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Meituan

Meituan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
MEI231827722

FAQ

Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between AQD by Comply365 company and Meituan company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between AQD by Comply365 and Meituan, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between AQD by Comply365 and Meituan, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - AQD by Comply365 or Meituan ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - AQD by Comply365 or Meituan ?
Between AQD by Comply365 and Meituan, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between AQD by Comply365 and Meituan, 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