Comparison Overview

Crytek

VS

Epic Games

Crytek

Crytek GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 60322, DE
Last Update: 2025-12-29
Between 600 and 649

Crytek is an independent videogame developer, publisher, and technology provider dedicated to pushing the boundaries of gaming with its cutting-edge 3D game development solution CRYENGINE. With headquarters in Frankfurt am Main (Germany) and studios in Kiev (Ukraine), and Istanbul (Turkey), Crytek has created multiple award-winning titles, including the original Far Cry, the Crysis series, Ryse: Son of Rome, Warface, The Climb, Robinson: The Journey and Hunt: Showdown. Crytek delivers fun and innovative gaming experiences for PC, consoles, and VR and continues to grow its reach in the games-as-a-service market. Every Crytek game is created with CRYENGINE, which can be used by anyone to create games. For more information visit www.crytek.com - www.cryengine.com and www.huntshowdown.com

NAICS: 51126
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 497
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Epic Games

Cary, NC, US
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 700 and 749

Founded in 1991, Epic Games is a leading interactive entertainment company and provider of 3D engine technology. Epic operates Fortnite, one of the world’s largest games with over 350 million accounts and 2.5 billion friend connections. Epic also develops Unreal Engine, which powers the world’s leading games and is adopted across industries such as film and television, architecture, automotive, manufacturing, and simulation. Through Unreal Engine, Epic Games Store, and Epic Online Services, Epic provides an end-to-end digital ecosystem for developers and creators to build, distribute, and operate games and other content. Epic has over 40 offices worldwide with headquarters in Cary, North Carolina.

NAICS: 51126
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,599
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/crytek.jpeg
Crytek
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/epic-games.jpeg
Epic Games
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
Crytek
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Epic Games
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computer Games Industry Average (This Year)

Crytek has 0.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Computer Games Industry Average (This Year)

Epic Games has 0.0% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Crytek cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Epic Games (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Epic Games cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/crytek.jpeg
Crytek
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploiting open MongoDB ports with no authentication
Motivation: Financial gain (ransom) / Data exfiltration
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2020
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/epic-games.jpeg
Epic Games
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Financial Gain, Political Motivations
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2016
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Epic Games company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Crytek company.

In the current year, Epic Games and Crytek have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Crytek company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Epic Games company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Epic Games company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Crytek company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Epic Games company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Crytek company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Crytek company nor Epic Games company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Epic Games company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Crytek company.

Epic Games company employs more people globally than Crytek company, reflecting its scale as a Computer Games.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Crytek nor Epic Games holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected is an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPUserSetting. Performing manipulation of the argument delno results in stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This impacts an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPServer. Such manipulation of the argument ip1 leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

A flaw has been found in omec-project UPF up to 2.1.3-dev. This affects the function handleSessionEstablishmentRequest of the file /pfcpiface/pfcpiface/messages_session.go of the component PFCP Session Establishment Request Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
Description

A vulnerability was detected in floooh sokol up to 16cbcc864012898793cd2bc57f802499a264ea40. The impacted element is the function _sg_pipeline_desc_defaults in the library sokol_gfx.h. The manipulation results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The patch is identified as 5d11344150973f15e16d3ec4ee7550a73fb995e0. It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in PbootCMS up to 3.2.12. The affected element is the function get_user_ip of the file core/function/handle.php of the component Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument X-Forwarded-For leads to use of less trusted source. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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