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

Comparison Overview

Bandicam CompanyBandicam Company
VS
Bosch USABosch USA
Bandicam Company

Bandicam Company

930 Roosevelt, Suite 235, Irvine, CA, US, 92620

Last Update: 01/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.bandicam.com
736/1000Moderate

Bandicam Company is one of the most popular multimedia companies that develop screen recording and video editing software. Our purpose is to make reliable software that can be easily used by ordinary users who are not familiar with computers. Our main products are Band...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:6
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Bosch USA

Bosch USA

38000 Hills Tech Dr., Farmington Hills, MI, US, 48331

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bosch.us
734/1000Moderate

The Bosch Group’s strategic objective is to create solutions for a connected life. Bosch improves quality of life worldwide with innovative products and services that are "Invented for life"​ and spark enthusiasm. Podcast: http://bit.ly/beyondbosch Imprint: https://www...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:13,467
Subsidiaries:69
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bandicam Company

Bandicam Company

-
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
Bosch USA

Bosch USA

-
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)

Bandicam Company has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bosch USA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bandicam Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bandicam Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Bosch USA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bosch USA 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...
Bandicam Company

Bandicam Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BANOBSCON1782901541
Bosch USA

Bosch USA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOS1764973211

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2