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

Comparison Overview

Erlang Ecosystem FoundationErlang Ecosystem Foundation
VS
MetaMeta
Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

San Francisco, 94117, US

Last Update: 31/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://erlef.org
748/1000Moderate

The Erlang Ecosystem Foundation’s goal is to grow and support a diverse community around the Erlang and Elixir Ecosystem, encouraging the continued development of technologies and open source projects based on/around its runtime and languages.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:20
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Meta

Meta

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, 94025, US

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.metacareers.com/
641/1000Poor

Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Our technologies help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. When Facebook launched in 2004, it changed the way people connect. Apps like Messenger, In...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:164,515
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

-
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
Meta

Meta

-
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)

Erlang Ecosystem Foundation has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Meta has 676.7% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Erlang Ecosystem Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Erlang Ecosystem Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Meta 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...
Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

Erlang Ecosystem Foundation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ERL1788171832
Meta

Meta

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOMICTREMET1788168069
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MET1780302304
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86544
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability where mutating code actions are incorrectly classified as read-only operations. Attackers with read-restricted sessions can exploit code.replace to modify permission configurations and escalate privileges on subsequent calls.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86543
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 serve the management API without authentication on all network interfaces by default, with no password required on fresh installations. Attackers can access the unauthenticated /api/tunnel/start endpoint to provision a public tunnel and republish the API at a publicly accessible address.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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: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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86542
SUMMARY

knowns before 0.30.0 fails to validate import names in the import routes, allowing unauthenticated attackers to write files outside the imports directory. Attackers can supply traversal sequences in the name parameter to escape the imports directory and overwrite arbitrary files writable by the server process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86541
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain a path traversal vulnerability in the handleCodeReplace() function that allows attackers to overwrite arbitrary files outside the project root. Attackers can supply absolute paths or relative paths containing directory traversal sequences to write malicious content to sensitive files like shell startup scripts or SSH configuration files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86540
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 fail to validate the settings.lsp.languages binary field in project configuration files, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary binaries by crafting a malicious .knowns/config.json file. When a repository with a crafted configuration is opened, the unvalidated binary path is executed twice under the user's account without any verification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8