Comparison Overview

HPE Aruba Networking

VS

inDrive

HPE Aruba Networking

280 America Center Dr., San Jose, 95002, US
Last Update: 2025-12-03
Between 750 and 799

HPE Aruba Networking designs and delivers Mobility-Defined Networks that empower a new generation of tech-savvy users.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 5,299
Subsidiaries: 24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

inDrive

Mountain View, 94040, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

inDrive is a global mobility and urban services platform. The inDrive app has been downloaded over 360 million times, and has been the second most downloaded mobility app for the third consecutive year. In addition to ride-hailing, inDrive provides an expanding list of urban services, including intercity transportation and delivery. In 2023, inDrive launched New Ventures, a venture and M&A arm. inDrive operates in 982 cities in 48 countries. Driven by its mission of challenging social injustice, the company is committed to having a positive impact on the lives of one billion people by 2030. It pursues this goal both through its core business, which supports local communities via a fair pricing model; and through the work of inVision, its non-profit arm. inVision’s community empowerment programs help to advance education, sports, arts and sciences, gender equality and other vital initiatives. For more information visit www.inDrive.com

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 10,185
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aruba-a-hewlett-packard-enterprise-company.jpeg
HPE Aruba Networking
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/indrive.jpeg
inDrive
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
HPE Aruba Networking
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
inDrive
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for HPE Aruba Networking in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for inDrive in 2025.

Incident History — HPE Aruba Networking (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HPE Aruba Networking cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

inDrive cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aruba-a-hewlett-packard-enterprise-company.jpeg
HPE Aruba Networking
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Hardcoded Credentials
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unauthenticated Directory Traversal Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote Code Execution
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indrive.jpeg
inDrive
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

inDrive company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to HPE Aruba Networking company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HPE Aruba Networking company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas inDrive company has not reported any.

In the current year, HPE Aruba Networking company has reported more cyber incidents than inDrive company.

Neither inDrive company nor HPE Aruba Networking company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

HPE Aruba Networking company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other inDrive company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither inDrive company nor HPE Aruba Networking company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

HPE Aruba Networking company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while inDrive company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

HPE Aruba Networking company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to inDrive company.

inDrive company employs more people globally than HPE Aruba Networking company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HPE Aruba Networking nor inDrive holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Sigstore Timestamp Authority is a service for issuing RFC 3161 timestamps. Prior to 2.0.3, Function api.ParseJSONRequest currently splits (via a call to strings.Split) an optionally-provided OID (which is untrusted data) on periods. Similarly, function api.getContentType splits the Content-Type header (which is also untrusted data) on an application string. As a result, in the face of a malicious request with either an excessively long OID in the payload containing many period characters or a malformed Content-Type header, a call to api.ParseJSONRequest or api.getContentType incurs allocations of O(n) bytes (where n stands for the length of the function's argument). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Monkeytype is a minimalistic and customizable typing test. In 25.49.0 and earlier, there is improper handling of user input which allows an attacker to execute malicious javascript on anyone viewing a malicious quote submission. quote.text and quote.source are user input, and they're inserted straight into the DOM. If they contain HTML tags, they will be rendered (after some escaping using quotes and textarea tags).

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
Description

SysReptor is a fully customizable pentest reporting platform. Prior to 2025.102, there is a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows authenticated users to execute malicious JavaScript in the context of other logged-in users by uploading malicious JavaScript files in the web UI. This vulnerability is fixed in 2025.102.

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

Taiko Alethia is an Ethereum-equivalent, permissionless, based rollup designed to scale Ethereum without compromising its fundamental properties. In 2.3.1 and earlier, TaikoInbox._verifyBatches (packages/protocol/contracts/layer1/based/TaikoInbox.sol:627-678) advanced the local tid to whatever transition matched the current blockHash before knowing whether that batch would actually be verified. When the loop later broke (e.g., cooldown window not yet passed or transition invalidated), the function still wrote that newer tid into batches[lastVerifiedBatchId].verifiedTransitionId after decrementing batchId. Result: the last verified batch could end up pointing at a transition index from the next batch (often zeroed), corrupting the verified chain pointer.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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
Description

A flaw has been found in youlaitech youlai-mall 1.0.0/2.0.0. Affected is the function getById/updateAddress/deleteAddress of the file /mall-ums/app-api/v1/addresses/. Executing manipulation can lead to improper control of dynamically-identified variables. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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