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

Comparison Overview

Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia PacificFujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific
VS
ReplyReply
Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

20E Pasir Panjang Road, Singapore, SG

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
759/1000Fair

FUJIFILM Business Innovation is a global leader committed to continuously deliver innovations to customers’ businesses worldwide, for creating innovative and fulfilling workplaces by effectively adopting information and knowledge through digital transformation (DX). We ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Reply

Reply

C.so Francia, 110, Turin, 10143, IT

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.reply.com
764/1000Fair

Reply [EXM, STAR: REY] specialises in the design and implementation of solutions based on new communication channels and digital media. As a network of highly specialised companies, Reply defines and develops business models enabled by the new models of AI, big data, cl...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:16,816
Subsidiaries:117
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

-
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
Reply

Reply

-
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 Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Reply in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific 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 - Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Reply 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...
Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

Fujifilm Graphic Communication Asia Pacific

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Reply

Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57980
SUMMARY

Authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to perform tampering over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56741
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not apply an upper bound to terminal dimensions received via the Telnet NAWS option, and TelnetIO.handleNAWS() in TelnetIO.java:856-879 reads client-supplied width and height as 16-bit unsigned integers and passes values such as 65535x65535 to setTerminalGeometry(), allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to repeatedly alternate values and trigger continuous expensive rendering work that causes CPU exhaustion and denial of service. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56740
SUMMARY

JLine is a Java library for handling console input. Prior to 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1, the JLine3 Telnet server remote-telnet module does not limit the number of environment variables a client may inject via the Telnet NEW-ENVIRON option, and TelnetIO.readNEVariables() in TelnetIO.java:1127-1180 stores each variable pair in a HashMap held by ConnectionData, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to flood unique variable pairs before the terminating IAC SE byte and exhaust JVM heap memory with an OutOfMemoryError. This issue is fixed in versions 3.30.14, 4.0.16, and 4.2.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56171
SUMMARY

Exposure of private personal information to an unauthorized actor in Windows RDP allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54335
SUMMARY

Feathersjs is a framework for creating web APIs and real-time applications with TypeScript or JavaScript. In 5.0.44 and earlier, the _.merge(target, source) utility exported by @feathersjs/commons recursively merges source into target by iterating Object.keys(source). When source was produced by JSON.parse and contains a __proto__, constructor, or prototype key, that key is returned as an own-enumerable property; the recursive merge then resolves target['__proto__'] to Object.prototype and writes attacker-supplied properties onto it, polluting the prototype for all plain objects in the process for the lifetime of the Node process. This issue is fixed in version 5.0.45.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-17
UPDATED
Date2026-07-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2