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

Comparison Overview

Crédit Agricole Technologies et ServicesCrédit Agricole Technologies et Services
VS
Ingram MicroIngram Micro
Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

PARIS, France, FR, 75012

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile

Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services (CA-TS) assure la conception, la fabrication et la maintenance du système d'information bancaire technologique des 39 Caisses régionales du Crédit Agricole, 1ère banque de proximité mutualiste en France. Forte de ses 1800 colla...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:2,029
Subsidiaries:48
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

3351 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA, US, 92612

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
100/1000Critical

Ingram Micro is a leading technology company for the global information technology ecosystem. With the ability to reach nearly 90% of the global population, we play a vital role in the worldwide IT sales channel, bringing products and services from technology manufactur...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:28,560
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

-
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
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

-
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 Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

Incidents

Incident History - Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services 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 - Ingram Micro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingram Micro 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...
Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

Crédit Agricole Technologies et Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ING1769038099
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ING1770920806
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ING1802018100325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9