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

Comparison Overview

株式会社comodo株式会社comodo
VS
AFPAAFPA
株式会社comodo

株式会社comodo

東金町1-45-12, 葛飾区, 125-0041, JP

Last Update: 04/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://comodobiz.jp/
747/1000Moderate

株式会社comodo 決裁者限定交流会ランマッチ主催 ランチ1回分の料金で決裁者とつながりが持てる 交流会で、名刺交換のときに、互いにどのような仕事をしているか会話し、それっきりになってしまったご経験はありませんか。 これってものすごくもったいないことなんです。 交流会の参加費は大体8,000円~15,000円。交通費が上乗せされ、自分の稼働時間を加えると、かなりのお金と時間を浪費していることになります。 お金と時間を浪費しているにもかかわらず、互いにサービスを紹介しあうだけの関係では、仕事に繋がりにつくことも多いのではないでしょ...

NAICS:6114
NAICS Definition:Business Schools and Computer and Management Training
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
AFPA

AFPA

Tour Cityscope - 3, rue Franklin, MONTREUIL, FR, 93100

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.afpa.fr
801/1000Good

L'AFPA, PREMIER ORGANISME DE FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE DES ADULTES Avec plus de 140 000 personnes formées chaque année dans plus de 200 implantations partout en France, l’Afpa, devenue Agence nationale pour la formation professionnelle des adultes en janvier 2017, es...

NAICS:6114
NAICS Definition:Business Schools and Computer and Management Training
Employees:18,975
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
株式会社comodo

株式会社comodo

-
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
AFPA

AFPA

-
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 Professional Training and Coaching Industry Avg (This Year)

株式会社comodo has 44.44% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Training and Coaching Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AFPA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - 株式会社comodo (X = Date, Y = Severity)

株式会社comodo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

AFPA 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...
株式会社comodo

株式会社comodo

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
COM1780575842
AFPA

AFPA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8