Comparison Overview

Coupang

VS

Microsoft

Coupang

720 Olive Way, None, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

We exist to wow our customers. We know we’re doing the right thing when we hear our customers say, “How did I ever live without Coupang?” Born out of an obsession to make shopping, eating, and living easier than ever, we are collectively disrupting the multi-billion-dollar commerce industry from the ground up and establishing an unparalleled reputation for being one of many high-performing companies and reliable force in South Korean commerce. We are proud to have the best of both worlds — a startup culture with the resources of a large global public company. This fuels us to continue our growth and launch new services at the speed we have been since our inception. We are all entrepreneurial, surrounded by opportunities to drive new initiatives and innovations. At our core, we are bold and ambitious people that like to get our hands dirty and make a hands-on impact. At Coupang, you will see yourself, your colleagues, your team, and the company grow every day. Our mission to build the future of commerce is real. We push the boundaries of what’s possible to solve problems and break traditional tradeoffs. Join Coupang now to create an epic experience in this always-on, high-tech, and hyper-connected world.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 7,994
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, US, 98052
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 650 and 699

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of approximately 228,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 220,893
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
21
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coupang.jpeg
Coupang
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Coupang
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Microsoft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Coupang has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 4672.73% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Coupang (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Coupang cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Microsoft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coupang.jpeg
Coupang
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: exploitation of signed access token
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Agent Exploitation (e.g., autonomous decision-making, broad data access), SaaS Infrastructure Compromise (e.g., widely-deployed firewalls), Identity Sprawl (e.g., over-permissioned roles, shadow identities), Synthetic Social Engineering (e.g., deepfakes, adaptive phishing), Critical Infrastructure Targeting (e.g., energy grids, water systems), Supply Chain Attacks (e.g., multi-cloud complexities), Concentrated Infrastructure Risk (e.g., Microsoft, Amazon, Google backbones)
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., ransomware, data exfiltration), Geopolitical Disruption (e.g., critical infrastructure sabotage), Espionage (e.g., AI-driven data theft), Market Manipulation (e.g., disrupting cloud providers), Talent Pipeline Exploitation (e.g., targeting entry-level job gaps)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious Extension (VS Code Marketplace), Trojanized npm Packages, GitHub C2, Postinstall Scripts
Motivation: Testing/Experimental (susvsex), Financial Gain (Vidar Infostealer), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Microsoft Teams Chats/Messages, Malicious Links/Files in Teams, Fake Profiles/Impersonation, Exploiting Privacy Mode Disabled, Guest/External Access Abuse, Public Meeting Links, Teams as Command-and-Control (C2), Ransom Demands via Teams
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., Ransomware, Data Theft), Espionage (Corporate/State), Credential Theft, Lateral Movement in Target Networks, Disruption (e.g., Locking Personal/Work Files)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Coupang company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Microsoft company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Coupang company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Coupang company.

Microsoft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Coupang company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Microsoft company and Coupang company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Microsoft company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Coupang company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Coupang company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Coupang company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Coupang company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Coupang nor Microsoft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: 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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H