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

Comparison Overview

ARMIS GroupARMIS Group
VS
AppenAppen
ARMIS Group

ARMIS Group

Rua do Freixo 725, Porto, 4300-217, PT

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.armisgroup.com
742/1000Moderate

ARMIS is a technology group with over 20 years of expertise, dedicated to innovation, development, and implementation of advanced solutions that accelerate business growth. We specialize in Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, Business Intelligence, Enterprise Soluti...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:203
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Appen

Appen

12131 113th Ave NE, Kirkland, 98034, US

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://appen.com
748/1000Moderate

Appen has been a leader in AI training data for over 25 years, providing high-quality, diverse datasets that power the world's leading AI models. Our end-to-end platform, deep expertise, and scalable human-in-the-loop services enable AI innovators to build and optimize ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:19,494
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ARMIS Group

ARMIS Group

-
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
Appen

Appen

-
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 ARMIS Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Appen in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ARMIS Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ARMIS Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Appen 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...
ARMIS Group

ARMIS Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ARM1773851521
Appen

Appen

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA