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

Comparison Overview

Comwrap Reply DACHComwrap Reply DACH
VS
Akamai TechnologiesAkamai Technologies
Comwrap Reply DACH

Comwrap Reply DACH

Uhlandstraße 2, Frankfurt am Main, 60314 , DE

Last Update: 09/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.comwrap.com
766/1000Fair

Providing AI-native professional services, focused on Adobe Experience Cloud solutions. Our delivery strategy ensures rapid value creation and low total cost of ownership by keeping teams small and agile. Specialising in Adobe Experience Platform, AEM, Digital Asset M...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:64
Subsidiaries:123
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

8 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, 02142, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.akamai.com
740/1000Moderate

At Akamai, we make life better for billions of people, billions of times a day. Every day, billions of people around the world connect with their favorite brands to shop online, play the latest video games, log into mobile banking apps, learn remotely, share videos wi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,673
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Comwrap Reply DACH

Comwrap Reply DACH

-
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
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Comwrap Reply DACH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Akamai Technologies has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Comwrap Reply DACH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Comwrap Reply DACH 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 - Akamai Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akamai Technologies 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...
Comwrap Reply DACH

Comwrap Reply DACH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TOLTELAKA1777389934
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AKA1776515140
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MARAKA1789468190

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8