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

Comparison Overview

ExpensifyExpensify
VS
MicrosoftMicrosoft
Expensify

Expensify

88 Kearny St, San Francisco, CA, 94104, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

Expensify helps more than 12 million people around the world track expenses, reimburse employees, manage corporate cards, send invoices, pay bills, and book travel. All in one app. So whether you're working for yourself, running a small business, managing a team, or clo...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:212
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Microsoft

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, 98052, US

Last Update: 30/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://news.microsoft.com/
642/1000Poor

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:233,556
Subsidiaries:52
12-month incidents
17
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Expensify

Expensify

-
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
Microsoft

Microsoft

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Expensify in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Microsoft has 1534.62% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Expensify cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Microsoft 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...
Expensify

Expensify

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Microsoft

Microsoft

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1784125827
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1784089434
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MIC1784816949

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71983
SUMMARY

MSI Radix AXE6600 router firmware version v781521 contains a command injection vulnerability in the wps.cgi interface that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through the pin2g, pin5g, or pin6g parameters. Attackers can exploit these unsanitized parameters to execute arbitrary commands on the affected device and obtain root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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-2026-71502
SUMMARY

CTI-Transmute contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability caused by insufficient neutralization of Vue template expression delimiters in server-rendered user-controlled data. An unauthenticated attacker can create a public conversion whose name or description contains a malicious Vue expression using the application's configured [[ ... ]] delimiters. User profile names may provide an additional injection vector. Although Jinja HTML escaping is applied, the resulting value is subsequently included in a DOM region compiled by Vue. Vue interprets the attacker-controlled value as a template expression rather than ordinary text. By accessing the JavaScript Function constructor from within the expression, an attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the security context of the CTI-Transmute origin. The application's nonce-based Content Security Policy does not prevent exploitation because the Vue runtime compiler requires the unsafe-eval policy exception. The malicious payload is stored by the application and executed whenever another user opens an affected page, such as the public conversion detail page. The victim may be a normal user or an administrator. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to: * Access data available to the victim through the application. * Extract API keys, tokens, or other sensitive information exposed to the page. * Perform authenticated actions using the victim's session. * Modify conversions or other application data. * Escalate the impact by targeting an administrator. A demonstrated payload can use [].constructor.constructor(...) to obtain the JavaScript Function constructor and execute arbitrary code. The regression tests also show that a short first-stage payload could retrieve an uncapped conversion description and evaluate a larger second-stage payload. The patch addresses the vulnerability by registering a global Jinja finalize hook that inserts a zero-width Unicode word joiner inside every Vue delimiter found in server-rendered values. This prevents Vue from recognizing the values as template expressions while preserving their visible representation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-71958
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the quicksetup.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write overly long strings to the test4, ssid2, and username fields and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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-2026-71957
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write an overly long string to the netAcc.addlist[].name field and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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-2026-71956
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a command injection vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can inject arbitrary malicious commands into the netDig.ping.dst field, resulting in command execution with root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
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