Comparison Overview

Atlassian

VS

Microsoft

Atlassian

Level 6/341 George St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://atlassian.com/

Atlassian powers the collaboration that helps teams accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone. From space missions and motor racing to bugs in code and IT requests, no task is too large or too small with the right team, the right tools, and the right practices. Over 300,000 global companies and 80% of the Fortune 500 rely on Atlassian’s software, like Jira, Confluence, Loom, and Trello, to help their teams work better together and deliver quality results on time. With our 300,000+ customers and team of 10,000+ Atlassians, we are building the next generation of team collaboration and productivity software. We believe the power of teams has the potential to change the world—one that is more open, authentic, and inclusive.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 17,274
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
View Profile

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, US, 98052
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 650 and 699
https://news.microsoft.com/

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of approximately 228,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 220,893
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
21
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/atlassian.jpeg
Atlassian
—
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/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
—
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
Atlassian
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Microsoft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atlassian in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 4672.73% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Atlassian cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/atlassian.jpeg
Atlassian
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Template Injection Vulnerability
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 02/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Stolen Login Credentials
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2022
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote Code Execution
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Agent Exploitation (e.g., autonomous decision-making, broad data access), SaaS Infrastructure Compromise (e.g., widely-deployed firewalls), Identity Sprawl (e.g., over-permissioned roles, shadow identities), Synthetic Social Engineering (e.g., deepfakes, adaptive phishing), Critical Infrastructure Targeting (e.g., energy grids, water systems), Supply Chain Attacks (e.g., multi-cloud complexities), Concentrated Infrastructure Risk (e.g., Microsoft, Amazon, Google backbones)
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., ransomware, data exfiltration), Geopolitical Disruption (e.g., critical infrastructure sabotage), Espionage (e.g., AI-driven data theft), Market Manipulation (e.g., disrupting cloud providers), Talent Pipeline Exploitation (e.g., targeting entry-level job gaps)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious Extension (VS Code Marketplace), Trojanized npm Packages, GitHub C2, Postinstall Scripts
Motivation: Testing/Experimental (susvsex), Financial Gain (Vidar Infostealer), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Microsoft Teams Chats/Messages, Malicious Links/Files in Teams, Fake Profiles/Impersonation, Exploiting Privacy Mode Disabled, Guest/External Access Abuse, Public Meeting Links, Teams as Command-and-Control (C2), Ransom Demands via Teams
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., Ransomware, Data Theft), Espionage (Corporate/State), Credential Theft, Lateral Movement in Target Networks, Disruption (e.g., Locking Personal/Work Files)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Atlassian company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Microsoft company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Atlassian company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Atlassian company.

Microsoft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Atlassian company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Atlassian company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Atlassian company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Atlassian company and Microsoft company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Atlassian company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Atlassian company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Atlassian nor Microsoft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
References
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
References
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
References
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Published
Date
2025-11-26
Updated
Date
2025-11-26
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
References