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

Comparison Overview

Check Point CheckMatesCheck Point CheckMates
VS
Palo Alto NetworksPalo Alto Networks
Check Point CheckMates

Check Point CheckMates

5 Ha’Solelim Street, None, Tel Aviv, -, IL, 67897

Last Update: 25/04/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

CheckMates is Check Point’s official User Community, bringing together Check Point users, experts, and R&D for freewheeling discussions aboutCheck Point products and architecture including Infinity, S

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, California, US, 95054

Last Update: 02/07/2026

View Profile
729/1000Moderate

Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:18,620
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Check Point CheckMates

Check Point CheckMates

-
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
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

-
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 Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Check Point CheckMates in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Palo Alto Networks has 560.38% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Check Point CheckMates (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Check Point CheckMates 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 - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Palo Alto Networks 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...
Check Point CheckMates

Check Point CheckMates

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1780115030
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1775738158
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
FOR1773937523

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2