Comparison Overview

Cisco

VS

Microsoft

Cisco

Tasman Way, San Jose, CA, US, 95134
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.cisco.com

Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its customers, partners and communities to unlock innovation, enhance productivity and strengthen digital resilience. With purpose at its core, Cisco remains committed to creating a more connected and inclusive future for all.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 95,475
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
5
View Profile

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, US, 98052
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749
https://news.microsoft.com/

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of approximately 228,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 220,893
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
—
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/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
—
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
Cisco
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Microsoft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Cisco has 934.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 1624.14% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Cisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploited Vulnerabilities (unspecified), Phishing/Social Engineering (likely), DDoS Attacks, Threatening Calls to Executives
Motivation: Financial Gain (ransomware proceeds, access sales)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation (Cisco ASA), Malware Implantation, Command Execution, Potential Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote Code Execution (RCE), Unauthenticated Access to VPN Endpoints, Crafted HTTP Requests
Motivation: Opportunistic Exploitation, Potential Data Theft, Malware Distribution
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Agent Exploitation (e.g., autonomous decision-making, broad data access), SaaS Infrastructure Compromise (e.g., widely-deployed firewalls), Identity Sprawl (e.g., over-permissioned roles, shadow identities), Synthetic Social Engineering (e.g., deepfakes, adaptive phishing), Critical Infrastructure Targeting (e.g., energy grids, water systems), Supply Chain Attacks (e.g., multi-cloud complexities), Concentrated Infrastructure Risk (e.g., Microsoft, Amazon, Google backbones)
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., ransomware, data exfiltration), Geopolitical Disruption (e.g., critical infrastructure sabotage), Espionage (e.g., AI-driven data theft), Market Manipulation (e.g., disrupting cloud providers), Talent Pipeline Exploitation (e.g., targeting entry-level job gaps)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Microsoft Teams Chat/Call Impersonation, Malicious File/Link Sharing (Teams channels), API Abuse (Microsoft Graph, Entra ID), Device Code Phishing, Malvertising (Fake Teams installers), AiTM (Adversary-in-the-Middle) Phishing, RMM Tool Deployment (e.g., AnyDesk), Federated Tenant Misconfigurations, Legitimate Admin Tools (e.g., AADInternals, PowerShell)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransomware, Extortion, Fraud), Espionage (State-Sponsored Actors), Credential Harvesting (Initial Access Brokering), Disruption (Operational Sabotage), Data Theft (PII, Corporate Intelligence)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: compromised maintainer account, malicious GitHub Actions workflow ('Add Github Actions Security workflow')
Motivation: credential harvesting, supply-chain compromise, potential follow-on attacks
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Cisco company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Cisco company.

Both Microsoft company and Cisco company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Both Microsoft company and Cisco company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Both Microsoft company and Cisco company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

Both Cisco company and Microsoft company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cisco company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Cisco company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cisco nor Microsoft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References