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

Comparison Overview

Cluster Reply PLCluster Reply PL
VS
CognizantCognizant
Cluster Reply PL

Cluster Reply PL

ul. Wrocławska 54, Katowic, undefined, 40-217, PL

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
750/1000Fair

Cluster Reply jest dynamiczną i innowacyjną firmą świadczącą usługi IT, specjalizującą się w technologiach, narzędziach i aplikacjach Microsoft. Jako Microsoft Gold Partner dostarczamy naszym klientom wyjątkowe rozwiązania, które pozwalają im wyprzedzić konkurencję. Nas...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:3
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cognizant

Cognizant

300 Frank W Burr Blvd, Teaneck, 07666, US

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://www.cognizant.ai
596/1000Very Poor

Cognizant (Nasdaq: CTSH) is an AI Builder and technology services provider, bridging the gap between AI investment and enterprise value. We build full-stack AI solutions powered by deep industry, process and engineering expertise — embedding an organization's unique co...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:369,020
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cluster Reply PL

Cluster Reply PL

-
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
Cognizant

Cognizant

-
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 Cluster Reply PL in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cognizant in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cluster Reply PL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cluster Reply PL 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 - Cognizant (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cognizant cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Cluster Reply PL

Cluster Reply PL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cognizant

Cognizant

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OCHCOGTRI1772814516
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COGVERRUB1770942636
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRIWYNCOG1772159592

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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: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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8