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
LuxoftLuxoft
GitLab

GitLab

268 Bush St, San Francisco, US

Last Update: 30/07/2026

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
5
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Luxoft

Luxoft

Gubelstrasse 24, Zug, 6300, CH

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.luxoft.com
807/1000Good

Luxoft, a DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC), is a digital strategy and software engineering firm providing bespoke technology solutions that drive business change for customers the world over. Acquired by U.S. company DXC Technology in 2019, Luxoft is a global operatio...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:15,550
Subsidiaries:0
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
Luxoft

Luxoft

-
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 235.57% 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 Luxoft 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 - Luxoft (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Luxoft 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
GIT1785407607
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GIT1785155190
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MOZPHAGITPROGOOGIT1780935989
Luxoft

Luxoft

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-73250
SUMMARY

Notepad++ is a free and open-source source code editor. Prior to 8.9.7, the Notepad++ Windows 11 x64 and ARM64 installer passes the attacker-influenced installation directory `$INSTDIR` from PowerEditor/installer/nppSetup.nsi into a PowerShell `-Command` string used by RegisterMSIX to invoke Add-AppxPackage, allowing PowerShell subexpression syntax such as `$()` in the installation path to execute commands in the installer's security context when the context menu component is selected. This issue is fixed in version 8.9.7.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-11
UPDATED
Date2026-08-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-73249
SUMMARY

calibre is an e-book manager. Prior to 9.12.0, the calibre Content Server endpoint POST /book-update-annotations/{library_id}/{book_id}/{fmt} in src/calibre/srv/books.py omits needs_db_write=True, causing Router.dispatch() to skip ctx.check_for_write_access() before update_annotations() passes attacker-controlled JSON to db.merge_annotations_for_book(), which allows a readonly user or an anonymous user on an unauthenticated deployment to persist unauthorized book annotation changes. This issue is fixed in version 9.12.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-11
UPDATED
Date2026-08-11
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73248
SUMMARY

calibre is an e-book manager. Prior to 9.12.0, calibre processes attacker-controlled composite_template metadata from a malicious EPUB, OPF, PDF, or similar file through program: and a nested template() call whose formatter does not inherit allow_python_templates=False, allowing a nested python: template to reach compile_python_template and execute arbitrary Python code when the file is opened or imported. This issue is fixed in version 9.12.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-11
UPDATED
Date2026-08-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-73247
SUMMARY

Kestra is an open-source, event-driven orchestration platform. Prior to 2.0.0, Kestra's core/src/main/java/io/kestra/core/runners/pebble/functions/HttpFunction.java passes the user-controlled http() uri argument to URI.create() and the server-side HTTP client without restricting private, loopback, or link-local destinations, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to import and execute a flow that accesses internal services or cloud metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-11
UPDATED
Date2026-08-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73246
SUMMARY

Kestra is an open-source, event-driven orchestration platform. Prior to 2.0.0-rc6, Kestra's worker/src/main/java/io/kestra/worker/endpoint/WorkerEndpoint.java serves GET /worker without authentication and serializes the complete live Task object, which can expose commands, environment variables, HTTP headers, connection details, plaintext credentials, and execution identifiers while the main API on port 8080 remains protected. This issue is fixed in 2.0.0-rc6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-11
UPDATED
Date2026-08-11
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