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

Comparison Overview

Concept Quality ReplyConcept Quality Reply
VS
inDriveinDrive
Concept Quality Reply

Concept Quality Reply

Via Nizza, 250, Turin, 10126, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile

Concept Reply is the Reply Group company specialised in the research, development and validation of innovative solutions in the IoT (Internet of Things) field. Today, Concept Reply is also recognised by the market as a centre of expertise and excellence in Testing and Q...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:173
Subsidiaries:122
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
inDrive

inDrive

Mountain View, 94040, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.inDrive.com
782/1000Fair

inDrive is a global mobility and urban services platform. The inDrive app has been downloaded over 400 million times, and has been the second most downloaded mobility app for the third consecutive year. In addition to ride-hailing, inDrive provides an expanding list of ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,675
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concept Quality Reply

Concept Quality Reply

-
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
inDrive

inDrive

-
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 Concept Quality Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for inDrive in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Concept Quality Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concept Quality Reply 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 - inDrive (X = Date, Y = Severity)

inDrive 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...
Concept Quality Reply

Concept Quality Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
inDrive

inDrive

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-78147
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in ggml-org llama.cpp bec4772f6. The impacted element is the function deserialize_tensor of the file ggml/src/ggml-rpc/ggml-rpc.cpp of the component ggml-RPC Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument op/op_params results in deserialization. The attack may be initiated remotely. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2026-34159 (GHSA-j8rj-fmpv-wcxw, PR #20908), which only added a buffer==nullptr rejection in create_node() and does not validate op or op_params. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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: 6.9
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: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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-78145
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in CTFd up to 3.8.4. The affected element is the function _is_safe_url of the file CTFd/utils/validators/__init__.py. Such manipulation of the argument Next leads to open redirect. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 5d8515842fd1ab2c3a9f2dde9ffca907aa334ea9. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
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: 2.1
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: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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78144
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /boarders.php of the component Boarder Management Module. Such manipulation of the argument ID leads to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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-2026-78143
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file residents.php of the component Resident Search Functionality. This manipulation of the argument Search causes sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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-2026-78142
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /archived_records.php of the component Restore/Delete. The manipulation of the argument resident_id results in authorization bypass. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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