Comparison Overview

DoorDash

VS

Amdocs

DoorDash

San Francisco, California, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

At DoorDash, our mission to empower local economies shapes how our team members move quickly and always learn and reiterate to support merchants, Dashers and the communities we serve. We are a technology and logistics company that started with door-to-door delivery, and we are looking for team members who can help us go from a company that is known for delivering food to a company that people turn to for any and all goods. DoorDash is growing rapidly and changing constantly, which gives our team members the opportunity to share their unique perspectives, solve new challenges, and own their careers. Our leaders seek the truth and welcome big, hairy, audacious questions. We are grounded in our company values, and we make intentional decisions that are both logical and display empathy for our range of users—from Dashers to Merchants to Customers.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 74,124
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
2

Amdocs

1390 Timberlake Manor Parkway, Chesterfield, MO, 63017, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

We help those who build the future to make it amazing. In an era where new technologies are born every minute, and the demand for meaningful digital experiences has never been so intense, we unlock our customers’ innovative potential, empowering them to transform their boldest ideas into reality, and make billions of people feel like VIPs. Our 31,000 employees around the globe are here to accelerate our customers’ migration to the cloud, differentiate in the 5G era, digitalize and automate their operations, and provide end users with the next-generation communication and media experiences that make the world say wow. Listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, Amdocs had revenue of $4.58 billion in fiscal 2022.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 35,252
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
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/amdocs.jpeg
Amdocs
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
DoorDash
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Amdocs
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

DoorDash has 809.09% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Amdocs in 2025.

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

DoorDash cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Amdocs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/doordash.jpeg
DoorDash
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Vendor Compromise, Credential Theft, Social Engineering
Motivation: Data Theft, Potential Fraud Enablement
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering (Employee Targeted)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Phishing (Spear Phishing/Vishing), Compromised Credentials
Motivation: Data Theft for Follow-on Attacks (e.g., Spear Phishing, Vishing), Potential Financial Gain via Stolen Data
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/amdocs.jpeg
Amdocs
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, DoorDash company has reported more cyber incidents than Amdocs company.

Neither Amdocs company nor DoorDash company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

DoorDash company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Amdocs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Amdocs company nor DoorDash company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

DoorDash company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Amdocs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

DoorDash company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Amdocs company.

DoorDash company employs more people globally than Amdocs company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds HIPAA certification.

Neither DoorDash nor Amdocs holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H