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

Comparison Overview

Cadence Fidelity CFDCadence Fidelity CFD
VS
DatabricksDatabricks
Cadence Fidelity CFD

Cadence Fidelity CFD

2655 Seely Ave, San Jose, 95134, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
748/1000Moderate

Cadence Design Systems is a worldwide provider of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and optimization software. With an industry-leading meshing approach and a robust host of solver and post-processing capabilities, Cadence CFD enables customers to reach superior produc...

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

Databricks

160 Spear Street, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://databricks.com
795/1000Fair

Databricks is the Data and AI company. More than 20,000 organizations worldwide — including adidas, AT&T, Bayer, Block, Mastercard, Rivian, Unilever, and over 60% of the Fortune 500 — rely on Databricks to build and scale data and AI apps, analytics and agents. Headquar...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:14,231
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cadence Fidelity CFD

Cadence Fidelity CFD

-
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
Databricks

Databricks

-
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 Cadence Fidelity CFD in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Databricks in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cadence Fidelity CFD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cadence Fidelity CFD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Databricks 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...
Cadence Fidelity CFD

Cadence Fidelity CFD

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Databricks

Databricks

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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