Comparison Overview

Carbonite

VS

Pitney Bowes

Carbonite

2 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA, 02111, US
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 700 and 749

Carbonite provides a robust Data Protection Platform for businesses, including backup, disaster recovery, high availability and workload migration technology. The Carbonite Data Protection Platform supports any size business, in locations around the world with secure and scalable global cloud infrastructure. To learn more visit www.Carbonite.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 226
Subsidiaries: 17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entities rely on Pitney Bowes to reduce the complexity of sending mail and parcels.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 12,782
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/carbonite.jpeg
Carbonite
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pitney-bowes.jpeg
Pitney Bowes
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Carbonite
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Pitney Bowes
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Carbonite in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pitney Bowes in 2026.

Incident History — Carbonite (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Carbonite cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pitney Bowes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/carbonite.jpeg
Carbonite
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: AI-driven phishing, deepfake (voice/video spoofing), third-party service providers, software supply chain
Motivation: financial gain (ransom payments), data theft, disruption of operations
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Compromised Credentials
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pitney-bowes.jpeg
Pitney Bowes
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Malware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Carbonite company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Pitney Bowes company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Carbonite and Pitney Bowes have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Pitney Bowes company and Carbonite company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Both Pitney Bowes company and Carbonite company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Carbonite company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Pitney Bowes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Pitney Bowes company nor Carbonite company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Carbonite company nor Pitney Bowes company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Carbonite company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pitney Bowes company.

Pitney Bowes company employs more people globally than Carbonite company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Carbonite nor Pitney Bowes holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N