Comparison Overview

Ispire

VS

Samsung Electronics

Ispire

1410 Abbot Kinney Blvd #PH1, None, Los Angeles, California, US, 90291
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

Your source for custom dosing hardware. Nothing for Sale; 21+ only | US stock available Ispire. THIS WAY UP ↑↑

NAICS: 334
NAICS Definition: Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees: 59
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Samsung Electronics

129 Samsung-ro, None, Suwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, KR, 443-742
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 750 and 799

Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medical devices, semiconductors and LED solutions. Samsung is also leading in the Internet of Things space through, among others, our Smart Home and Digital Health initiatives. Since being established in 1969, Samsung Electronics has grown into one of the world’s leading technology companies, and become recognized as one of the top 10 global brands. Our network now extends across the world, and Samsung takes great pride in the creativity and diversity of its talented people, who drive our growth. To discover more, please visit our website at www.samsung.com and our official newsroom at news.samsung.com

NAICS: 334
NAICS Definition: Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees: 161,321
Subsidiaries: 41
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/getispire.jpeg
Ispire
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsung-electronics.jpeg
Samsung Electronics
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ispire
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Samsung Electronics
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ispire in 2025.

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Samsung Electronics has 1328.57% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Ispire (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ispire cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Samsung Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Electronics cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/getispire.jpeg
Ispire
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsung-electronics.jpeg
Samsung Electronics
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious Image Files, Closed-Source Library Exploitation (libimagecodec.quram.so)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Samsung Electronics company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ispire company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Samsung Electronics company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ispire company has not reported any.

In the current year, Samsung Electronics company has reported more cyber incidents than Ispire company.

Neither Samsung Electronics company nor Ispire company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Samsung Electronics company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Ispire company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Samsung Electronics company nor Ispire company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Samsung Electronics company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Ispire company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Samsung Electronics company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ispire company.

Samsung Electronics company employs more people globally than Ispire company, reflecting its scale as a Computers and Electronics Manufacturing.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ispire nor Samsung Electronics holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H