Comparison Overview
Elastic

Elastic
88 Kearny St, San Francisco, 94108, US
Last Update: 17/06/2026
Elastic, the Search AI Company, enables everyone to find the answers they need in real time, using all their data, at scale. Elastic’s solutions for search, observability, and security are built on the Elastic Search AI Platform — the development platform used by thousa...

Cisco
Tasman Way, San Jose, 95134, US
Last Update: 13/10/2026
Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its custo...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Elastic







Cisco






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Elastic has 90.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Cisco has 3625.49% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Elastic (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Elastic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Cisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Elastic

Cisco
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.