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

Comparison Overview

BITMARCKBITMARCK
VS
EPAM SystemsEPAM Systems
BITMARCK

BITMARCK

Kruppstraße 64, Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, DE, 45145

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.bitmarck.de
722/1000Moderate

As a managed service provider for the IT market of statutory health insurance, BITMARCK furthers digitalization of this sector as well as innovative solutions and services for its customers. 85 percent of all German, statutory health insurances are customers of BITMARCK...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:983
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

41 University Drive Suite 202, Newtown, PA, US, 18940

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.epam.com
771/1000Fair

Since 1993, EPAM Systems, Inc. (NYSE: EPAM) has used its software engineering expertise to become a leading global provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading business and experience consulting partner for global enterpri...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:63,943
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BITMARCK

BITMARCK

-
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
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

-
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 BITMARCK in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for EPAM Systems in 2026.

Incidents

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

BITMARCK cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EPAM Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EPAM Systems 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...
BITMARCK

BITMARCK

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BIT101529723
🔒 Incident : Breach
BIT41314823
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96680
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in ByteDance Coze Scraper Extension up to 2.0.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal.addListener of the file static/background/index.js of the component External Message Handler. The manipulation of the argument body.url/paginationConfig/xPathConfig/body.urls/xPaths results in missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96678
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in weiqingwen spring-boot-forum up to 538eecc3c6b85fdf0768ab4e8354b48c0c17d94f. Affected is the function validate of the file src/main/java/com/qingwenwei/util/NewUserFormValidator.java of the component Avatar Upload. The manipulation of the argument Username leads to path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96676
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Fast FAC1900R 20190827_2.0.2. The impacted element is the function get_alias_name of the component uhttpd. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96606
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in LB-Link BL-CPE600EU 5.8.13. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file Mifi_config.bin of the component Configuration Backup Handler. The manipulation results in information disclosure. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70125
SUMMARY

Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8