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
LenovoLenovo
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
Lenovo

Lenovo

8001 Development Dr, Morrisville, 27560, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lenovo.com
786/1000Fair

Lenovo is a US$69 billion revenue global technology powerhouse, ranked #196 in the Fortune Global 500, and serving millions of customers every day in 180 markets. Focused on a bold vision to deliver Smarter Technology for All, Lenovo has built on its success as the worl...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:46,066
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

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
Lenovo

Lenovo

-
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)

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

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 - Lenovo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lenovo 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...
BITMARCK

BITMARCK

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BIT101529723
🔒 Incident : Breach
BIT41314823
Lenovo

Lenovo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DIG1777919462
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LEN532082025
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LEN001120824

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-14776
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function pathinfo of the file /upload_files.php of the component Filename Extension. Performing a manipulation results in unrestricted upload. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in SourceCodester Onlne Examination & Learning Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /process_lesson.php. Such manipulation of the argument user_id leads to unrestricted upload. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The name of the affected product appears to have a typo in it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14774
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /paymentdischarge.php. This manipulation of the argument patientid causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-14773
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Hospital Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /payment.php. The manipulation of the argument patientid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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-2026-10657
SUMMARY

Zephyr's DNS resolver detects mDNS (.local) queries in dns_resolve_name_internal() (subsys/net/lib/dns/resolve.c) with memcmp(strrchr(query, '.'), ".local", 7), which always reads a fixed 7 bytes from the suffix pointer. When the resolved hostname's final label is shorter than 7 bytes (e.g. names ending in .org, .com, .net, .io, or a trailing dot), the comparison reads 1-2 bytes past the string's NUL terminator. The hostname (query) is the caller-supplied name passed through the standard getaddrinfo()/dns_get_addr_info()/dns_resolve_name() path and is influenceable by operators or remote inputs (server names from configuration, parsed URLs, or app-facing interfaces). On a tightly-sized buffer with no slack (for example a userspace getaddrinfo call where the hostname is copied with k_usermode_string_alloc_copy to exactly strlen+1 bytes), the over-read crosses the allocation boundary; if that boundary is unmapped (guard page, memory-domain boundary under MPU, or an address sanitizer) the over-read faults, causing a denial of service. The over-read bytes are never returned, so there is no information disclosure. The flaw is compiled only when CONFIG_MDNS_RESOLVER is enabled, exists since v1.10.0, and is fixed by replacing the fixed-length memcmp with a NUL-safe strcmp(ptr, ".local").

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-05
UPDATED
Date2026-07-05
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:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2