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

Comparison Overview

Brightly SoftwareBrightly Software
VS
GoogleGoogle
Brightly Software

Brightly Software

4242 Six Forks Rd, Raleigh, 27609, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
576/1000Very Poor

Brightly Software, a Siemens company, enables organizations to manage the entire lifecycle of their assets, facilities and infrastructure. As the global leader in intelligent asset management solutions for more than 25 years, Brightly’s sophisticated cloud-based platfor...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:973
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1
Google

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, 94043, US

Last Update: 11/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://goo.gle/3DLEokh
161/1000Critical

A problem isn't truly solved until it's solved for all. Googlers build products that help create opportunities for everyone, whether down the street or across the globe. Bring your insight, imagination and a healthy disregard for the impossible. Bring everything that ma...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:313,465
Subsidiaries:53
12-month incidents
52
Known data breaches
21
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Brightly Software

Brightly Software

-
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
Google

Google

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Brightly Software in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Google has 4852.38% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Brightly Software (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brightly Software cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Google 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...
Brightly Software

Brightly Software

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LMSBRI1771280844
🔒 Incident : Breach
SCHBRI1773995566
🔒 Incident : Breach
BRI624072925
Google

Google

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AOLMICYAHFASGOO1786188226
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GOOANTOPE1786465634
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
APPDISTREGOOTHE1785342399

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9