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

Comparison Overview

Cohesity User GroupCohesity User Group
VS
LinkedInLinkedIn
Cohesity User Group

Cohesity User Group

N/A

Last Update: 27/06/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Welcome to the next era of the Cohesity User Group! Together, IT professionals, data gurus, and Cohesity enthusiasts connect, learn, and enjoy enhanced networking experiences. Members receive exclusive access to local and global events, dedicated regional crews, educati...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

1000 W Maude, Sunnyvale, CA, US, 94085

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://careers.linkedin.com
798/1000Fair

Founded in 2003, LinkedIn connects the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. With more than 1 billion members worldwide, including executives from every Fortune 500 company, LinkedIn is the world's largest professional network. The company h...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:23,908
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cohesity User Group

Cohesity User Group

-
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
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cohesity User Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

LinkedIn has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Cohesity User Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cohesity User Group 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 - LinkedIn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LinkedIn 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...
Cohesity User Group

Cohesity User Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIN1780863827
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LINMIC1780539842
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN1773246240

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8