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

Comparison Overview

GitLabGitLab
VS
EPAM SystemsEPAM Systems
GitLab

GitLab

268 Bush St, San Francisco, US

Last Update: 18/08/2026

View Profile

GitLab is the Intelligent Orchestration Platform where software teams and their AI agents stay in flow to amplify their capacity for innovation. Together, they automate repetitive tasks to plan, build, secure, test, deploy and maintain software. With GitLab, software te...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:3,422
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

41 University Drive Suite 202, Newtown, PA, US, 18940

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.epam.com
775/1000Fair

Since 1993, EPAM Systems, Inc. (NYSE: EPAM) has used its software engineering expertise to become a leading global provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading business and experience consulting partner for global enterpri...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:63,943
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GitLab

GitLab

-
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
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

-
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)

GitLab has 305.41% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for EPAM Systems in 2026.

Incidents

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

GitLab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EPAM Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EPAM Systems 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...
GitLab

GitLab

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GIT1787036383
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GIT1785407607
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GIT1785155190
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85456
SUMMARY

MOOS-IvP through 24.8.1 fails to properly validate variable names extracted from alog files in the SplitHandler, allowing attackers to write files outside the split directory. Attackers can supply crafted alog files with backslash sequences in variable names to escape the output directory and append to arbitrary files on Windows systems.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-85455
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in CMOOSCommPkt where a four-byte packet triggers out-of-bounds memory access during deserialization. Attackers can open a TCP connection to the MOOSDB port and send a crafted short packet to read memory before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-85454
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in CMOOSSerialPort::GetTelegram() that writes a NUL terminator one byte past the serial telegram stack buffer. Attackers controlling the serial line can send a full-length telegram to trigger the off-by-one write, corrupting the stack and potentially enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-85453
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 fails to escape database contents when rendering MOOSDB HTTP pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts. Any MOOS publisher can set variable values containing script payloads that execute in the browser of operators viewing the web interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-85452
SUMMARY

MOOS ui-moos through 50b9c6c contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in ScopeTabPane.cpp and ScopeGrid.cpp where client and variable names are formatted into fixed 1024-byte buffers using sprintf without length validation. Attackers can supply arbitrarily long MOOS identifiers that overflow the buffers when an operator selects process list entries or pokes variables, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8