Comparison Overview

Cox Automotive Inc.

VS

Cadence

Cox Automotive Inc.

3003 Summit Blvd., 200, Atlanta, GA, US, 30319
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Cox Automotive is the world’s largest automotive services and technology provider. Fueled by the largest breadth of first-party data fed by 2.3 billion online interactions a year, Cox Automotive tailors leading solutions for car shoppers, auto manufacturers, dealers, lenders and fleets. The company has 29,000+ employees on five continents and a portfolio of industry-leading brands that include Autotrader®, Kelley Blue Book®, Manheim®, vAuto®, Dealertrack®, NextGear Capital™, CentralDispatch® and FleetNet America®. Cox Automotive is a subsidiary of Cox Enterprises Inc., a privately-owned, Atlanta-based company with $22 billion in annual revenue.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,452
Subsidiaries: 30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Cadence

2655 Seely Avenue, San Jose, California, US, 95134
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Cadence is a market leader in AI and digital twins, pioneering the application of computational software to accelerate innovation in the engineering design of silicon to systems. Our design solutions, based on Cadence’s Intelligent System Design™ strategy, are essential for the world’s leading semiconductor and systems companies to build their next-generation products from chips to full electromechanical systems that serve a wide range of markets, including hyperscale computing, mobile communications, automotive, aerospace, industrial, life sciences and robotics. In 2024, Cadence was recognized by the Wall Street Journal as one of the world’s top 100 best-managed companies. Cadence solutions offer limitless opportunities—learn more at www.cadence.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,378
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-automotive-inc-.jpeg
Cox Automotive Inc.
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/cadence.jpeg
Cadence
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
Cox Automotive Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cadence
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Automotive Inc. in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cadence in 2025.

Incident History — Cox Automotive Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Automotive Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Cadence cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-automotive-inc-.jpeg
Cox Automotive Inc.
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882), Unauthenticated Access, Multi-Stage Java Implants, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Internal (Insider)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Automated Collection Methods
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cadence.jpeg
Cadence
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Cadence company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cox Automotive Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cox Automotive Inc. company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cadence company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cox Automotive Inc. company has reported more cyber incidents than Cadence company.

Cox Automotive Inc. company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Cadence company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Automotive Inc. company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Cadence company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Automotive Inc. company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Cadence company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. company nor Cadence company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cox Automotive Inc. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cadence company.

Cox Automotive Inc. company employs more people globally than Cadence company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. nor Cadence 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