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

Comparison Overview

GlobantGlobant
VS
ZoomZoom
Globant

Globant

875 Howard St, San Francisco, 94103, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://globant.link/3YqJVI4
738/1000Moderate

At Globant, we create the digitally-native products that people love. We bridge the gap between businesses and consumers through technology and creativity, leveraging our experience as an AI powerhouse. We dare to digitally transform organizations and strive to delight ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:28,486
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Zoom

Zoom

55 Almaden Blvd., 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113, San Jose, CA, US, 95113

Last Update: 15/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.zoom.com
710/1000Moderate

Bring teams together, reimagine workspaces, engage new audiences, and delight your customers –– all on the Zoom AI-first work platform you know and love. 💙 Zoomies help people stay connected so they can get more done together. We set out on a mission to make video com...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:12,708
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Globant

Globant

-
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
Zoom

Zoom

-
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 Globant in 2026.

Incidents

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

Zoom has 284.62% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Globant cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Zoom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Globant

Globant

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GLO25631322
Zoom

Zoom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ZOO1784154237
🔒 Incident : Breach
WORNOTGOOZOONIKTIN1777868873
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOZOO1770908381

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10681
SUMMARY

In Zephyr's userspace dynamic-objects subsystem, thread_idx_alloc() in kernel/userspace/userspace.c allocated a new thread permission index from the global _thread_idx_map[] bitmap without holding lists_lock. On SMP systems, two user-mode threads invoking the k_object_alloc(K_OBJ_THREAD) syscall concurrently can both observe the same low free bit, perform the same non-atomic RMW to clear it, and return the identical tidx. The two newly created K_OBJ_THREAD objects are then assigned the same thread_id, so the two user threads alias a single bit position in every kernel object's perms[] bitfield: any subsequent grant of access on a kernel object to one thread is implicitly a grant to the other, defeating userspace ACL isolation. A secondary lost-update window between the unlocked &=~BIT() in alloc and the locked |= BIT() in thread_idx_free() can also leak entries from the thread-index pool. The defect is reachable from any user-mode thread via the unrestricted __syscall k_object_alloc and is gated on CONFIG_USERSPACE, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS, and CONFIG_SMP. The flaw was introduced when the per-thread permission index was added in 2018 and is present in every release up to and including v4.4.0. Fixed by holding lists_lock across the bitmap RMW and the permissions clear (and inlining the obj_list traversal that previously took the lock itself).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-66013
SUMMARY

OpenRemote before 1.26.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the console registration API that allows unauthenticated attackers to update existing console assets by supplying a known asset identifier. Attackers can overwrite push notification tokens and console metadata without authentication or ownership validation, redirecting notifications or denying delivery to legitimate consoles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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-2026-66012
SUMMARY

SiYuan before v3.7.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the POST /mcp kernel endpoint, which is gated only by a general auth check (model.CheckAuth) with no admin-role or read-only enforcement. This exposes 31 MCP tools, including a file tool with list/read/write/delete/rename/copy actions across the entire workspace. When the Publish server is enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true and Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false), the Publish reverse proxy attaches an anonymous RoleReader JWT to proxied requests, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to reach /mcp. The attacker can read conf/conf.json to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey in plaintext, write arbitrary files in the workspace, and plant a plugin into data/plugins/ that executes with nodeIntegration:true and no contextIsolation on the next desktop launch, leading to administrator takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66011
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-27 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the magick command-line interface when invalid options are provided. Attackers can trigger memory exhaustion by repeatedly supplying malformed command-line arguments to consume system resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64529
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: qat - remove unused character device and IOCTLs The QAT driver exposes a character device (qat_adf_ctl) with IOCTLs for device configuration, start, stop, status query and enumeration. These IOCTLs are not part of any public uAPI header and have no known in-tree or out-of-tree users. Device lifecycle is already managed via sysfs. The ioctl interface also increases the attack surface and is the subject of a number of bug reports. Remove the character device, the IOCTL definitions, and the related data structures (adf_dev_status_info, adf_user_cfg_key_val, adf_user_cfg_section, adf_user_cfg_ctl_data). Drop the now-unused adf_cfg_user.h header and strip adf_ctl_drv.c down to the minimal module_init/module_exit hooks for workqueue, AER, and crypto/compression algorithm registration. Clean up leftover dead code that was only reachable from the removed IOCTL paths: adf_cfg_del_all(), adf_devmgr_verify_id(), adf_devmgr_get_num_dev(), adf_devmgr_get_dev_by_id(), adf_get_vf_real_id() and the unused ADF_CFG macros. Additionally, drop the entry associated to QAT IOCTLs in ioctl-number.rst.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA