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

Comparison Overview

Dominion Voting SystemsDominion Voting Systems
VS
ZoomZoom
Dominion Voting Systems

Dominion Voting Systems

Denver, 80202, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://libertyvote.com/
734/1000Moderate

We are a full service organization that understands how critical it is for you to have a solutions provider committed to being transparent: transparent in how they do business, in how their products work and in how they operate within your election process. We are much ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:132
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Zoom

Zoom

55 Almaden Blvd., 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113, San Jose, CA, US, 95113

Last Update: 04/05/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.zoom.com
715/1000Moderate

Bring teams together, reimagine workspaces, engage new audiences, and delight your customers –– all on the Zoom AI-first work platform you know and love. 💙 Zoomies help people stay connected so they can get more done together. We set out on a mission to make video com...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:12,708
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Dominion Voting Systems

Dominion Voting Systems

-
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
Zoom

Zoom

-
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 Dominion Voting Systems in 2026.

Incidents

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

Zoom has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Dominion Voting Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dominion Voting Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Zoom 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...
Dominion Voting Systems

Dominion Voting Systems

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DOM5602156092825
Zoom

Zoom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
WORNOTGOOZOONIKTIN1777868873
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOZOO1770908381
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ZOO1769568712

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3