Comparison Overview

Client Heartbeat

VS

Red Hat

Client Heartbeat

None
Last Update: 2025-03-06 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Client Heartbeat is a customer survey tool that monitors customer satisfaction to intelligently identify how happy or unhappy your customers are. It works by sending automated customer surveys that collect feedback and intuitively displays it back to you on a simple dashboard. Use this feedback to identify unhappy customers and implement customer retention programs so you can retain more customers. Remember, on average it costs a company $234 for every lost customer. Client Heartbeat costs just $25/month. Client Heartbeats gives businesses more insight into which customers love you, like you and might be at risk, with intelligent analysis of their responses. It allows businesses to benchmark the customer feedback they receive against others in their industry. The business can then use this to better serve its customers by identifying the areas in which it underperforms, and get new business by marketing a clear unique selling proposition where it can prove it outperforms the competition. As the only customer feedback tool that trends responses, intelligently analyses data and benchmarks against others, Client Heartbeat makes it easy to identify and improve a businessesโ€™s weaknesses and measure differentiation in the eyes of customers. For more information please visit our website: www.clientheartbeat.com

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, 27601, US
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900

Red Hat is the worldโ€™s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions, using a community-powered approach to deliver high-performing Linux, hybrid cloud, edge, and Kubernetes technologies. We hire creative, passionate people who are ready to contribute their ideas, help solve complex problems, and make an impact. Opportunities are open. Join us.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 19,575
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/client-heartbeat.jpeg
Client Heartbeat
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Client Heartbeat
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Red Hat
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Client Heartbeat in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Red Hat has 104.08% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” Client Heartbeat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Client Heartbeat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Red Hat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/client-heartbeat.jpeg
Client Heartbeat
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/red-hat.jpeg
Red Hat
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote Code Execution
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Client Heartbeat company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to Red Hat company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

Red Hat company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Client Heartbeat company has not reported any.

In the current year, Red Hat company has reported more cyber incidents than Client Heartbeat company.

Neither Red Hat company nor Client Heartbeat company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Red Hat company nor Client Heartbeat company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Red Hat company nor Client Heartbeat company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Red Hat company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Client Heartbeat company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Red Hat company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Client Heartbeat company.

Red Hat company employs more people globally than Client Heartbeat company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the tokenโ€™s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victimโ€™s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victimโ€™s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

Apollo Studio Embeddable Explorer & Embeddable Sandbox are website embeddable software solutions from Apollo GraphQL. Prior to Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The vulnerability arises from missing origin validation in the client-side code that handles window.postMessage events. A malicious website can send forged messages to the embedding page, causing the victimโ€™s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victimโ€™s cookies. This issue has been patched in Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /consulta-dispensas. Such manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected is an unknown function of the file /module/Api/aluno. This manipulation of the argument aluno_id causes improper authorization. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Tencent WeKnora 0.1.0. This impacts the function testEmbeddingModel of the file /api/v1/initialization/embedding/test. The manipulation of the argument baseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The vendor responds: "We have confirmed that the issue mentioned in the report does not exist in the latest releases".

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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