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

Comparison Overview

Concept Engineering ReplyConcept Engineering Reply
VS
InfosysInfosys
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering Reply

Via Nizza, 250, Turin, 10126, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Concept Reply is the hardware and software development partner of the Reply Group specialized in IoT innovation. It offers solutions in the areas of Smart Infrastructure, Industrial IoT and Connected Vehicle. From the initial idea through the concept phase to implementa...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:180
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Infosys

Infosys

Infosys Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka, IN, 560100

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.infosys.com
660/1000Weak

Infosys is a global leader in next-generation digital services and consulting. We enable clients in more than 50 countries to navigate their digital transformation. With over three decades of experience in managing the systems and workings of global enterprises, we expe...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:363,614
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering 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
Infosys

Infosys

-
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 Engineering Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Infosys in 2026.

Incidents

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

Concept Engineering 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 - Infosys (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Infosys 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...
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Infosys

Infosys

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INFESO1773692833
🔒 Incident : Breach
INF121032125
🔒 Incident : Breach
INF749032025

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9