Comparison Overview

CyberPanel

VS

Coforge

CyberPanel

undefined, Escondido, CA, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 650 and 699

CyberPanel is web hosting control which is based on OpenLitespeed, LiteSpeed Enterprise and Apache. Comes with builtin support for DNS, FTP, Email, File Manager and automatic SSL.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Coforge

Noida Expressway, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201304, IN
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Coforge is a global digital services and solutions provider, that leverages emerging technologies and deep domain expertise to deliver real-world business impact for its clients. A focus on select industries, a deep domain understanding of the underlying processes of those industries and partnerships with leading technology platforms, enables Coforge to be a trusted partner of its clients in their transformation initiatives. Coforge leads with its Product Engineering approach and leverages AI, Cloud, Data, Integration and Automation technologies to transform businesses into intelligent, high growth enterprises. Coforge has 30 global delivery centers and is present in 23 countries. Coforge is an equal opportunities employer and welcomes applications from all sections of society and does not discriminate on grounds of race, religion or belief, ethnic or national origin, disability, age, citizenship, marital, domestic or civil partnership status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, or any other basis as protected by applicable law.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 27,921
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cyberpanel.jpeg
CyberPanel
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/coforge-tech.jpeg
Coforge
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
CyberPanel
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Coforge
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for CyberPanel in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Coforge in 2025.

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

CyberPanel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Coforge cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cyberpanel.jpeg
CyberPanel
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploiting vulnerabilities
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/coforge-tech.jpeg
Coforge
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

CyberPanel company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Coforge company has not reported any.

In the current year, Coforge company and CyberPanel company have not reported any cyber incidents.

CyberPanel company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Coforge company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Coforge company nor CyberPanel company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Coforge company nor CyberPanel company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither CyberPanel company nor Coforge company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Coforge company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CyberPanel company.

Coforge company employs more people globally than CyberPanel company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds HIPAA certification.

Neither CyberPanel nor Coforge holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A weakness has been identified in codingWithElias School Management System up to f1ac334bfd89ae9067cc14dea12ec6ff3f078c01. Affected is an unknown function of the file /student-view.php of the component Edit Student Info Page. This manipulation of the argument First Name causes cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product follows a rolling release approach for continuous delivery, so version details for affected or updated releases are not provided. Other parameters might be affected as well. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 3.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/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
Description

By providing a command-line argument starting with a semi-colon ; to an API endpoint created by the EnhancedCommandExecutor class of the HexStrike AI MCP server, the resultant composed command is executed directly in the context of the MCP server’s normal privilege; typically, this is root. There is no attempt to sanitize these arguments in the default configuration of this MCP server at the affected version (as of commit 2f3a5512 in September of 2025).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

A weakness has been identified in winston-dsouza Ecommerce-Website up to 87734c043269baac0b4cfe9664784462138b1b2e. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /includes/header_menu.php of the component GET Parameter Handler. Executing manipulation of the argument Error can lead to cross site scripting. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. This product implements a rolling release for ongoing delivery, which means version information for affected or updated releases is unavailable. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Qualitor 8.20/8.24. Affected by this vulnerability is the function eval of the file /html/st/stdeslocamento/request/getResumo.php. Performing manipulation of the argument passageiros results in code injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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 vulnerability was identified in Scada-LTS up to 2.7.8.1. Affected is the function Common.getHomeDir of the file br/org/scadabr/vo/exporter/ZIPProjectManager.java of the component Project Import. Such manipulation leads to path traversal. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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