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

Comparison Overview

Drift, a Salesloft companyDrift, a Salesloft company
VS
AutodeskAutodesk
Drift, a Salesloft company

Drift, a Salesloft company

222 Berkley Street, Boston, 02116, US

Last Update: 10/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.drift.com/
396/1000Critical

Drift®, the buyer experience and Conversational AI company, inspires businesses to create more engaging customer experiences, one conversation at a time. Drift helps thousands of customers across the globe translate conversational data and buyer behavior into deeper rel...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:275
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
3
Autodesk

Autodesk

Market St, San Francisco, CA, US, 94105

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.autodesk.com
809/1000Good

Autodesk is changing how the world is designed and made. Our technology spans architecture, engineering, construction, product design, manufacturing, and media and entertainment. We empower innovators everywhere to solve challenges, big and small. From greener buildi...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:15,698
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Drift, a Salesloft company

Drift, a Salesloft company

-
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
Autodesk

Autodesk

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Drift, a Salesloft company has 183.02% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Autodesk in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Drift, a Salesloft company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Drift, a Salesloft company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Autodesk cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Drift, a Salesloft company

Drift, a Salesloft company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DRI1775442259
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAL1773146972
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEL1773332910
Autodesk

Autodesk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8