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

Comparison Overview

CompasCompas
VS
SEOSEO
Compas

Compas

3 Executive Campus, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08002, US

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://compasonline.com/
752/1000Fair

For over 30 years, Compas has partnered with leading media providers and innovators across all channels to position them for success. We are stewards of our clients’ media investments, enforcing the highest standards of management, execution, effectiveness, transparency...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:265
Subsidiaries:49
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
SEO

SEO

Melbourne, 3121, AU

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://seo.com.au
768/1000Fair

It’s been over 15 years since SEO.com.au started, and we’re proud to say we lead the way because we’ve got the experience and the talent to get you great results. What makes us work? Quite honestly, it’s the relationships we build with our clients that let us achieve wh...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:10,298
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Compas

Compas

-
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
SEO

SEO

-
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 Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Compas in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SEO in 2026.

Incidents

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

Compas 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 - SEO (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SEO 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...
Compas

Compas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
SEO

SEO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-52880
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Versions from 1.7.14 through 1.7.17 are vulnerable to a remotely triggerable denial of service. Both REST APIs are started with the Gin Engine.Run convenience method, which serves requests through Go's default HTTP server with no ReadHeaderTimeout, ReadTimeout, or MaxHeaderBytes configured. As a result, incoming connections that never complete their request headers are held open indefinitely. When a REST listener is reachable beyond localhost through the documented all-interface bind or a Docker port-publish deployment, a single unauthenticated client can open many slow-header connections and hold them open until server file descriptors are exhausted, preventing the API from accepting new connections. This renders the REST API unavailable to legitimate clients. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-52879
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. In versions 1.7.14 through 1.7.17, the direct-message ingress handler spawns a new goroutine for every incoming direct message before the processor-level antiflood layer makes any admission decision, with no semaphore, throttler, or bound on the number of concurrent in-flight spawns. Because the antiflood check runs inside the spawned goroutine rather than before it, a single connected peer can open a direct-send stream and send a stream of well-formed messages to force unbounded goroutine creation, where each goroutine allocates its own stack and holds a message reference until processing completes, adding scheduler and garbage-collection pressure faster than the runtime can drain it. This lets one peer degrade the node's availability and its ability to process legitimate traffic, resulting in a remotely triggerable denial of service. The issue is fixed in 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-52878
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Versions 1.7.14 through 1.7.17 are vulnerable to a nil-pointer panic triggered by a protobuf Transaction whose embedded RawData sub-message is omitted. This omission causes RawData to decode to nil. Every transaction gossiped on the Klever-Go P2P network is decoded and validated synchronously inside the libp2p pubsub topic-validator callback, where txVersionChecker.CheckTxVersion dereferences tx.RawData.Version with no nil check. Because the libp2p pubsub callback, the underlying go-libp2p-pubsub validation worker, and Klever's own network/p2p layer install no recover(), the panic propagates and crashes the entire node process. The attacker payload is a 3-byte protobuf message; no validator key, stake, funds, or on-chain account is required, and delivery aimed at enough of the BLS validator set can halt block production, resulting in a chain halt. This issue has been fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-49343
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. In versions prior to 1.7.18, the account-data trie syncers are vulnerable to a resource-exhaustion flaw that leaks bounded throttler slots on error paths. In syncDataTrie() (in both userAccountsSyncer.go and kappAccountsSyncer.go), StartProcessing() reserves a slot from the NumGoRoutinesThrottler, but the corresponding EndProcessing() is only called on the success path and on the duplicate-root early return. As a result, any error from trie.NewTrie(), trie.NewTrieSyncer(), or trieSyncer.StartSyncing() (including the network-dependent timeout path) permanently consumes one slot for the lifetime of the throttler. An attacker who can repeatedly cause trie-node sync failures or timeouts during bootstrap can exhaust the bounded throttler, after which further account-data trie syncs stop making progress and SyncAccounts() returns a timeout. Because epoch bootstrap in syncUserAccountsState() and syncKappAccountsState() aborts on any such error, this causes bootstrap to fail, a core availability issue affecting fresh, restarting, or resyncing nodes and validators. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-48122
SUMMARY

Ruby LSP is an implementation of the language server protocol for Ruby. Several workspace-level settings in the Ruby LSP VS Code extension prior to version 0.10.4 could override the path to the Ruby executable, the version manager executables, or the Bundler `Gemfile` used at startup. A malicious repository containing a `.vscode/settings.json` could set these values to attacker-controlled targets. Opening and trusting the repository would then execute code with the privileges of the developer. The Ruby LSP gem and clients of the language server in other editors are not affected. Version 0.10.4 of the Ruby LSP VS Code extension fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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