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

Comparison Overview

Flock SafetyFlock Safety
VS
DEKRADEKRA
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
407/1000Critical

Flock Safety is the leading public safety platform designed to help communities prevent and reduce crime, not just respond to it. We partner with cities, law enforcement agencies, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods to deliver real-time, objective intelligence that h...

NAICS:92219
NAICS Definition:Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
Employees:1,454
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2
DEKRA

DEKRA

Handwerkstr. 15, Stuttgart, 70565, DE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dekra.com
782/1000Fair

For 100 years, DEKRA has been a trusted name in safety. Founded in 1925 with the original goal of improving road safety through vehicle inspections, DEKRA has grown to become the world's largest independent, non-listed expert organization in the field of testing, inspec...

NAICS:92219
NAICS Definition:Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
Employees:14,373
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

-
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
DEKRA

DEKRA

-
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 Public Safety Industry Avg (This Year)

Flock Safety has 96.08% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Public Safety Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DEKRA in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Flock Safety (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Flock Safety cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

DEKRA 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...
Flock Safety

Flock Safety

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FLO1782132974
🔒 Incident : Breach
FLOVEN1772764366
🔒 Incident : Breach
CITFLO1772001588
DEKRA

DEKRA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9