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

Comparison Overview

Cisco PartnersCisco Partners
VS
LuxoftLuxoft
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

Tasman Dr, San Jose, 95134, US

Last Update: 24/01/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

The official LinkedIn page for the Cisco Partner Ecosystem--with news, networking, and information for #CiscoPartners and #CiscoDistributors. Cisco Partner Summit 2025 | November 3 – 5 | San Diego, CA | #CiscoPS25

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Luxoft

Luxoft

Gubelstrasse 24, Zug, 6300, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.luxoft.com
807/1000Good

Luxoft, a DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC), is a digital strategy and software engineering firm providing bespoke technology solutions that drive business change for customers the world over. Acquired by U.S. company DXC Technology in 2019, Luxoft is a global operatio...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:15,550
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

-
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
Luxoft

Luxoft

-
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 Cisco Partners in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Luxoft in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cisco Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cisco Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Luxoft 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...
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Luxoft

Luxoft

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-9044
SUMMARY

An OS command injection vulnerability exists in the VPN module of TP-Link AXE75 V1 routers. This vulnerability allows an adjacent, authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the device by importing a specially crafted VPN client configuration file. The issue arises from improper filtering of special characters.  Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may enable an attacker to gain full control of the affected device, potentially compromising configuration integrity, network security, and service availability.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/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-2026-54909
SUMMARY

pion/stun is a Go implementation of STUN. Prior to 3.1.3, XORMappedAddress.GetFromAs can panic while parsing a malformed short XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in STUN or ICE Binding-response parsing paths, allowing remote denial of service. This issue is fixed in version 3.1.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54785
SUMMARY

gemini-bridge is a lightweight MCP server bridging AI agents to Google's Gemini AI via the official CLI. From 1.0.0 until 1.3.1, consult_gemini_with_files in inline mode read any file path supplied in the files argument without confining it to the working directory, then forwarded the contents to the Gemini CLI. Because the caller also controls query, the file contents are echoed back through the Gemini round-trip (and sent to Google), making this an arbitrary local file read. This issue is fixed in version 1.3.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5
CVE-2026-54768
SUMMARY

WPGraphQL provides a GraphQL API for WordPress sites. From 2.0.0 until 2.15.1, the deprecated user field on SendPasswordResetEmailPayload lets an unauthenticated caller distinguish existing author-class accounts through the sendPasswordResetEmail mutation and obtain public profile fields. This issue is fixed in version 2.15.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
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:X/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-2026-53573
SUMMARY

GeoNetwork is a catalog application to manage spatially referenced resources. From 3.12.0 until 4.2.16 and 4.4.11, unsafe redirect validation in GeonetworkOAuth2LoginAuthenticationFilter and KeycloakAuthenticationProcessingFilter permits an attacker-controlled external redirect after login. This issue is fixed in versions 4.2.16 and 4.4.11.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-31
UPDATED
Date2026-07-31
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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