What is the official website of CryptoBilis ?

The official website of CryptoBilis is https://www.cryptobilis.com.

What is CryptoBilis's cybersecurity risk score?

CryptoBilis has an AI-generated cybersecurity risk score of 585 out of 1000, indicating a Very Poor security posture according to Rankiteo's assessment.

How many security incidents has CryptoBilis experienced?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis currently holds 0 security badges, indicating that no recognized compliance certifications are currently verified for the organization.

Has CryptoBilis been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis has been affected by a supply chain cyber incident involving Ledger, with the incident ID LEDCRY1792312267.

Does CryptoBilis have SOC 2 Type 1 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis is not certified under SOC 2 Type 1.

Does CryptoBilis have SOC 2 Type 2 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis does not hold a SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Does CryptoBilis comply with GDPR ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis is not listed as GDPR compliant.

Does CryptoBilis have PCI DSS certification ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis does not currently maintain PCI DSS compliance.

Does CryptoBilis comply with HIPAA ?

According to Rankiteo, CryptoBilis is not compliant with HIPAA regulations.

Does CryptoBilis have ISO 27001 certification ?

According to Rankiteo,CryptoBilis is not certified under ISO 27001, indicating the absence of a formally recognized information security management framework.

Which industry does CryptoBilis operate in ?

CryptoBilis operates primarily in the Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment industry.

How many employees does CryptoBilis have ?

CryptoBilis employs approximately 1 people worldwide.

Does CryptoBilis own any subsidiaries ?

CryptoBilis presently has no subsidiaries across any sectors.

How many LinkedIn followers does CryptoBilis have ?

CryptoBilis's official LinkedIn profile has approximately 40 followers.

What is the NAICS classification code for CryptoBilis ?

CryptoBilis is classified under the NAICS code 443, which corresponds to Electronics and Appliance Stores.

Does CryptoBilis have a Crunchbase profile ?

No, CryptoBilis does not have a profile on Crunchbase.

Does CryptoBilis have a LinkedIn profile ?

Yes, CryptoBilis maintains an official LinkedIn profile, which is actively utilized for branding and talent engagement, which can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cryptobilismy.

How many cybersecurity incidents has CryptoBilis experienced ?

As of October 20, 2026, Rankiteo reports that CryptoBilis has experienced 1 cybersecurity incidents.

How many peer or competitor companies does CryptoBilis have ?

CryptoBilis has an estimated 51 peer or competitor companies worldwide.

What types of cybersecurity incidents has CryptoBilis faced ?

Incident Types: The types of cybersecurity incidents that have occurred include Breach.

Badge your company to reduce your risk score and your cyber insurance costs!

Link verified badges to your company page to build trust with insurers and customers.

Apply now and get your badge!

Internal validation & live display

Insurers and partners see a safer profile

Faster underwriting decisions

Trusted by insurers. Chosen by leaders.

Proud contributor to the Society of Actuaries.

CryptoBilis

Boost Score +25 with badge (5 left)

585

/1000

Very Poor

610

/1000

Poor

CryptoBilis Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

cryptobilis.com

Add Your Compliance Badge

A leading crypto commerce in South East Asia that offers a comprehensive range of top-tier hardware wallets, a unique line of swag, and vibrant community events. Empowering Crypto-Fans since 2021. Malaysia | Philippines | Indonesia

CryptoBilis

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News & History

Past Incidents

Attack Types

Entity

Type

Severity

Impact

Seen

Blog Details

Supply Chain Source

Incident Details

View

CryptoBilis

Breach

100

10/2026

Ledger

LEDCRY179231226...

Loading…

A.I.

CryptoBilis Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction

Incident Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction A

Prediction B

Prediction C

Prediction D

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

Loading…

Underwriter Stats for CryptoBilis

Incidents vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

CryptoBilis has 50.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

CryptoBilis has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident Types CryptoBilis vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

CryptoBilis reported 1 incidents this year: 0 cyber attacks, 0 ransomware, 0 vulnerabilities, 1 data breaches, compared to industry peers with at least 1 incident.

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

Loading…

SUBSIDIARY

CryptoBilis Subsidiaries

Parent Company

CryptoBilis

Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment

Website: https://www.cryptobilis.com

Company Size: 11-50 employees

No subsidiary data available for this company.

Loading…

CryptoBilis Similar Companies

CECONOMY

ceconomy.de

Die CECONOMY AG vereinfacht das Leben in der digitalen Welt. Die Gesellschaft ist führend für Konzepte und Marken im Bereich Consumer Electronics in Europa. Die Unternehmen im CECONOMY-Portfolio haben Milliarden Verbraucherkontakte pro Jahr und bieten Produkte, Dienstleistungen und Lösungen, die das Leben in der digitalen Welt so einfach und angenehm wie möglich machen. So schaffen sie Mehrwert für Kunden ebenso wie für Investoren.

Loading…

NEWS

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News

Latest updates, reports, and threat intel affecting the global network.

Loading…

CVE

Latest

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

CVE-2026-77684

SUMMARY

The Bluetooth Classic Hands-Free Profile HF role in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/hfp_hf.c does not release the AT command buffers that are still queued on hf->tx_pending when the RFCOMM DLC goes down. hfp_hf_disconnected() only cancelled the work items and cleared hf->acl, and no other code path ever dequeues those buffers, so each one is permanently lost from the fixed hf_pool (CONFIG_BT_MAX_CONN + 1 buffers, i.e. two in the default configuration). The same function also left BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_CONNECTED set, and hfp_hf_create() wiped the object with memset() as soon as hf->acl was NULL, without checking whether hf->work, hf->slc_work or hf->deferred_work was still pending or running. The remote Audio Gateway peer controls the trigger end to end and needs no application involvement: an unsolicited +BCS: 1 response makes bcs_handle() call bt_hfp_hf_select_codec() and queue an AT+BCS buffer, which cannot be transmitted while BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_RX_ONGOING is set, and an immediately following RFCOMM DISC strands that buffer. Repeating the connect / +BCS / disconnect cycle a couple of times empties hf_pool for good. With the pool exhausted, HFP command sending fails permanently, and because hfp_hf_send_cmd() allocates with K_FOREVER (bt_rfcomm_create_pdu() → bt_conn_create_pdu()) from the Bluetooth RX context — where that timeout is not downgraded to K_NO_WAIT — one further +BCS from the peer parks the Bluetooth RX thread inside net_buf_alloc() with no possible waker, halting all HCI event processing until the device is rebooted. Separately, reusing the HF slot while a work handler was still queued or running allowed memset() to wipe live k_work items out from under the system workqueue, corrupting shared kernel workqueue state. Exploitation requires an established HFP session (for SSP devices L2CAP enforces authentication before the RFCOMM channel is reachable) and a build with CONFIG_BT_HFP_HF enabled.

Published

Date2026-10-19

Updated

Date2026-10-19

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)

cvss3

Base Score: 5.7

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Impact Score

3.6

Exploitability

2.1

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-19595

SUMMARY

The user-mode syscall verifier z_vrfy_rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() in subsys/rtio/rtio_syscalls.c validated its two output parameters, buff and buff_len, with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_READ() rather than K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE(). Both are pure out-parameters: z_impl_rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() stores the mempool buffer address and its length through them. The distinction is enforced by every architecture validator — arch_buffer_validate() on RISC-V PMP explicitly accepts the global __rom_region/__rodata_region for reads only, and the ARM MPU validators accept P_RO_U_RO and P_RW_U_RO regions for reads only — so a read-validated pointer is not necessarily writable by the calling thread. An unprivileged user-mode thread that has been granted access to an RTIO context (rtio_access_grant()) can invoke the rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() syscall with buff/buff_len pointing at memory it may read but not write, and with a completion-queue entry whose flags field it fully controls (only RTIO_CQE_FLAG_MEMPOOL_BUFFER in flags[7:0] is required; flags[19:8] and flags[31:20] supply the block index and count). The kernel then performs a pointer-sized and a 4-byte store through those addresses while running in supervisor mode. Reaching the store requires CONFIG_USERSPACE together with CONFIG_RTIO_SYS_MEM_BLOCKS, the configuration behind RTIO_DEFINE_WITH_MEMPOOL; without the latter the implementation returns -ENOTSUP and writes nothing. Two outcomes follow. If the target lies in a memory-domain partition declared K_MEM_PARTITION_P_RW_U_RO (privileged read-write, user read-only), the kernel-mode store succeeds and deposits partly attacker-chosen values into memory the memory domain had marked read-only for that thread, bypassing the partition's write protection. If the target lies in globally readable but unwritable memory such as .text/.rodata in flash, the store faults in kernel mode; the fault is delivered to z_fatal_error() and the default k_sys_fatal_error_handler() halts or reboots the device, giving an unprivileged thread a reliable full denial of service. The read-permission check does bound the damage: the address must still be readable by the calling thread, so kernel-private memory cannot be targeted and no confidential data is disclosed. The fix replaces both checks with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE(), so a thread lacking write permission is terminated by K_OOPS before the implementation runs; the cqe argument correctly remains read-validated.

Published

Date2026-10-19

Updated

Date2026-10-19

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)

cvss3

Base Score: 6.1

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H

Impact Score

4.2

Exploitability

1.8

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-19178

SUMMARY

IBM Storage TS4500 Library 1.1.1.6 through 1.12.0.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to gain unauthorized administrative privileges due to a race condition.

Published

Date2026-10-19

Updated

Date2026-10-19

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)

cvss3

Base Score: 6.8

Complexity: HIGH

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Impact Score

5.2

Exploitability

1.6

REFERENCES

https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7292610

CVE-2026-112991

SUMMARY

The html_to_markdown expansion module in MISP Modules contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its is_safe_url() URL validation function. The BLOCKED_RANGES list used to reject unsafe destination addresses was incomplete, omitting several critical IP address ranges. Specifically, the following ranges were not blocked: 0.0.0.0/8 (unspecified, which routes to loopback on Linux), 100.64.0.0/10 (carrier-grade NAT per RFC 6598), ::/128 (IPv6 unspecified), fc00::/7 (IPv6 Unique Local Addresses), and fe80::/10 (IPv6 link-local). The existing list only covered IPv4 loopback (127.0.0.0/8), RFC 1918 private ranges, IPv4 link-local (169.254.0.0/16), and IPv6 loopback (::1/128). An authenticated user with the ability to create or modify MISP attributes that trigger the html_to_markdown expansion module could supply URLs pointing to these unblocked internal address ranges. Because the module fetches the URL server-side to convert HTML content to Markdown, the request is made from the MISP server's network context. This allows an attacker to probe and read responses from internal services, carrier-grade NAT infrastructure, or link-local endpoints that would otherwise be unreachable from external networks. IPv4-mapped IPv6 forms (e.g., [::ffff:0.0.0.0]) also bypassed the existing checks. The security impact is primarily confidentiality: an attacker can read data served by internal services reachable from the MISP server. The MISP instance itself is not compromised, but it is abused as a proxy to access otherwise restricted network resources.

Published

Date2026-10-19

Updated

Date2026-10-19

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

cvss4

Base Score: 6.3

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

https://github.com/misp/misp-modules/commit/98a1c2c2f297665dd8d4609e9cd644007a57516b

CVE-2026-112372

SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in H3C Magic NX15 V100R017. This affects the function importprofile of the file /api/upload. This manipulation of the argument fileName causes path traversal. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

Published

Date2026-10-19

Updated

Date2026-10-19

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)

cvss2

Base Score: 5.8

Complexity: LOW

AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P

cvss3

Base Score: 6.6

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

cvss4

Base Score: 2.0

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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

3.7

Exploitability

2.3

REFERENCES

Loading…

API

Access Data Using Our API

Get company history

curl -i -X GET 'https://api.rankiteo.com/underwriter-getcompany-history?
linkedin_id=axa' -H 'apikey: YOUR_API_KEY_HERE'

Try It API Documentation Rapid

MEASURE

What Do We Measure ?

Incident

Finding

Grade

Digital Assets

Every week, Rankiteo analyzes billions of signals to give organizations a sharper, faster view of emerging risks. With deeper, more actionable intelligence at their fingertips, security teams can outpace threat actors, respond instantly to Zero-Day attacks, and dramatically shrink their risk exposure window.

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Network SecurityIdentify exposed access points, detect misconfigured SSL certificates, and uncover vulnerabilities across the network infrastructure.

SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)Gain visibility into the software components used within an organization to detect vulnerabilities, manage risk, and ensure supply chain security.

CMDB (Configuration Management Database)Monitor and manage all IT assets and their configurations to ensure accurate, real-time visibility across the company's technology environment.

Threat IntelligenceLeverage real-time insights on active threats, malware campaigns, and emerging vulnerabilities to proactively defend against evolving cyberattacks.

Rankiteo

By Rankiteo

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

View on G2.com

Rankiteo is a unified scoring and risk platform that analyzes billions of signals weekly to help organizations gain faster, more actionable insights into emerging threats. Empowering teams to outpace adversaries and reduce exposure.

View latest plans →View all security reports →

MILESTONEG

Users
Love Us

Loading…

Badge your company to reduce your risk score and your cyber insurance costs!

Trusted by insurers. Chosen by leaders.

CryptoBilis Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

CryptoBilis A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News & History

CryptoBilis Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Incident Predictions locked

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Underwriter Stats for CryptoBilis

Incidents vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

Incident Types CryptoBilis vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

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

CryptoBilis Subsidiaries

Parent Company

CryptoBilis

CryptoBilis Similar Companies

CECONOMY

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Access Data Using Our API

What Do We Measure ?

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Rankiteo

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News & History

CryptoBilis Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Incident Predictions locked

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Underwriter Stats for CryptoBilis

Incidents vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

Incident Types CryptoBilis vs Retail Appliances, Electrical, and Electronic Equipment Industry Avg (This Year)

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

CryptoBilis Subsidiaries

Parent Company

CryptoBilis

CryptoBilis Similar Companies

CECONOMY

CryptoBilis CyberSecurity News

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Access Data Using Our API

What Do We Measure ?

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Rankiteo