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

Comparison Overview

FPT JapanFPT Japan
VS
AlmavivA ExperienceAlmavivA Experience
FPT Japan

FPT Japan

3-5-19 Mita, Minatoku, Tokyo 108-0073, JP

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://fptsoftware.com
754/1000Fair

FPTジャパンホールディングスは、FPTコーポレーションの子会社であるFPTソフトウェアの日本法人です。 FPTソフトウェアは、ベトナムに本社を置くグローバルなテクノロジーおよびITサービスプロバイダーであり、2024年の売上は12.2億USドル、30か国に33,000人以上の社員を擁しています。同社は、高度なアナリティクス、AI、デジタルプラットフォーム、クラウド、ハイパーオートメーション、IoT、ローコードなどの分野で世界水準のサービスを提供し、複雑化するビジネス環境における課題解決や新たなビジネスの創出を支援しています。これ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

Avenida Rebouças 2728, São Paulo, 05402-500, BR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

Líder em transformação digital nos mercados de Customer Experience e Debt Collection na América Latina. Combinamos tecnologia, inteligência e excelência operacional para entregar soluções completas que antecipam as necessidades dos nossos Clientes. São mais de 530 mil...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:22,366
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
FPT Japan

FPT Japan

-
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
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for FPT Japan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AlmavivA Experience in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - FPT Japan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

FPT Japan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - AlmavivA Experience (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AlmavivA Experience 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...
FPT Japan

FPT Japan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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