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

Comparison Overview

Continue (acquired by Cursor)Continue (acquired by Cursor)
VS
WorkdayWorkday
Continue (acquired by Cursor)

Continue (acquired by Cursor)

San Francisco, US

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://continue.dev
736/1000Moderate

Pioneering open-source coding agent

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:18
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Workday

Workday

6110 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Pleasanton, 94588, US

Last Update: 02/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.workday.com
685/1000Weak

By unifying HR and Finance on an open, trusted platform powered by AI, Workday delivers high-impact outcomes our customers can count on. At the heart of our platform is Sana from Workday—the superintelligence that puts AI agents to work for you and your people. Welcome ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:24,969
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Continue (acquired by Cursor)

Continue (acquired by Cursor)

-
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
Workday

Workday

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Continue (acquired by Cursor) has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Workday has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Continue (acquired by Cursor) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Continue (acquired by Cursor) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Workday 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...
Continue (acquired by Cursor)

Continue (acquired by Cursor)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OPEANTOPECON1788942323
Workday

Workday

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
WORNOTGOOZOONIKTIN1777868873
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAL2862828092525
🔒 Incident : Breach
WOR1768679649

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8