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

Comparison Overview

DJI Enterprise DeutschlandDJI Enterprise Deutschland
VS
Cox EnterprisesCox Enterprises
DJI Enterprise Deutschland

DJI Enterprise Deutschland

N/A

Last Update: 06/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://enterprise.dji.com/
772/1000Fair

At DJI Enterprise, we believe drones aren’t just tools, they’re transforming how the world works. From saving lives in emergencies to inspecting power lines, mapping cities, and protecting the environment, professionals globally are using DJI technology to make daily ...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

6305 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, Atlanta, 30328, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
677/1000Weak

Thousands of employees, one goal: empower people today to build a better future for the next generation. How do we do that? By disrupting industries. By treating our employees as our most important resource. By improving the quality of life in our communities and by pro...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:35,429
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DJI Enterprise Deutschland

DJI Enterprise Deutschland

-
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
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

-
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 Technology, Information and Media Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DJI Enterprise Deutschland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Media Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Enterprises in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - DJI Enterprise Deutschland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DJI Enterprise Deutschland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Cox Enterprises (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Enterprises 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...
DJI Enterprise Deutschland

DJI Enterprise Deutschland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COX53102453112425
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COX1495114112425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-55867
SUMMARY

Graylog is a free and open log management platform. From 6.2.0 until 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2, the DELETE /users/{userId}/tokens/{idOrToken} endpoint implemented by UsersResource.revokeToken() in graylog2-server/src/main/java/org/graylog2/rest/resources/users/UsersResource.java checks USERS_TOKENREMOVE permission against the attacker-controlled userId path parameter before resolving the token selected by idOrToken. An authenticated user can provide an authorized userId while accessTokenService.loadById() or accessTokenService.load() resolves a token belonging to another user, including a service account or administrator, after which accessTokenService.destroy() deletes that token without checking AccessToken.getUserName(). The issue does not expose token contents, but unauthorized deletion causes integrity impact and can disrupt access-token-based integrations. This issue is fixed in versions 6.3.12, 7.0.7, and 7.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55860
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb does not gate clear-text password authentication plugins on transport encryption because the AuthenticationPlugin interface has no capability for a plugin to require a secure connection. A hostile or man-in-the-middle MariaDB server can send an AuthSwitchRequest naming mysql_clear_password or dialog (PAM) over a plain-TCP unencrypted connection, and AuthenticationFlow permits ClearPasswordPluginFlow or PamPluginFlow to return the user's password as cleartext bytes on the wire. The disclosed credentials can subsequently be used to authenticate directly to the database server. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55859
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/R2DBC is a non-blocking MariaDB and MySQL client implemented in Java. Prior to 1.4.1, org.mariadb:r2dbc-mariadb encodes and decodes all character data under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. A server can announce a mid-session change to character_set_client through the OK-packet session-state-tracking mechanism, including through SET NAMES executed by a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile or man-in-the-middle server. If the new character set is not UTF-8, the driver continues to exchange UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under a different encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value raises R2dbcNonTransientResourceException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in version 1.4.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55858
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, the connector encodes and decodes protocol text and performs client-side escaping under the assumption that the connection character set is UTF-8. The server can report a mid-session change to character_set_client through OK-packet session-state tracking, including a change caused by SET NAMES, a stored routine or trigger, server configuration, or a hostile server. If character_set_client changes to a non-UTF-8 value, the driver continues to read and write UTF-8 while the server interprets the same bytes under another encoding, causing silent data corruption and a client/server charset-confusion mismatch that can defeat byte-wise quoting or escaping. The fix accepts only utf8, utf8mb3, or utf8mb4 after initialization; any other value causes SQLException with SQLState 08000 and closes the connection. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-55857
SUMMARY

MariaDB Connector/J is used to connect applications developed in Java to MariaDB and MySQL databases. Prior to 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9, PAM dialog authentication can be coerced into transmitting the account password over an insecure connection. The mysql_clear_password plugin is gated behind a secure transport, but the sibling PAM handler SendPamAuthPacketFactory, named dialog by the server, does not declare that requirement and inherits the default secure-required value false; older branches implement the same affected behavior in SendPamAuthPacket. A hostile or man-in-the-middle server can send an Authentication Switch Request for dialog over plain TCP, causing the driver to return the user's password in cleartext when sslMode=DISABLE and restrictedAuth=null, which is the default configuration. Properly verified TLS and local Unix sockets are not exposed to this transport vector. This issue is fixed in versions 2.7.14, 3.3.5, 3.4.3, and 3.5.9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-28
UPDATED
Date2026-08-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2