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

Comparison Overview

ATLAS Technology GroupATLAS Technology Group
VS
AsurionAsurion
ATLAS Technology Group

ATLAS Technology Group

5214 Village Pkwy, Rogers, Arkansas, 72758, US

Last Update: 20/02/2026

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

Atlas helps consumer goods companies make better decisions by harmonizing data and extracting richer insights … in less time. Atlas'​ single, intuitive interface accelerates the Insight-to-Impact Cycle, while streamlining the flow of information … from data to decision....

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18
Subsidiaries:41
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Asurion

Asurion

1101 Church St, Nashville, 37203, US

Last Update: 23/04/2026

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

As the world’s leading tech care company, Asurion eliminates the fears and frustrations associated with technology, to ensure our 300 million customers get the most out of their devices, appliances and connections. We provide insurance, repair, replacement, installation...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:16,725
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ATLAS Technology Group

ATLAS Technology 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
Asurion

Asurion

-
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 ATLAS Technology Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

Asurion has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

ATLAS Technology Group 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 - Asurion (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Asurion 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...
ATLAS Technology Group

ATLAS Technology Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Asurion

Asurion

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GITNPMASU1776918263
🔒 Incident : Breach
ASU11273423

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2