Comparison Overview

GNOME Foundation

VS

KPIT

GNOME Foundation

US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

The GNOME Foundation will work to further the goal of the GNOME project: to create a computing platform for use by the general public that is completely free software. The GNOME project provides two things: The GNOME desktop environment, an intuitive and attractive desktop for users, and the GNOME development platform, an extensive framework for building applications that integrate into the rest of the desktop.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 107
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

KPIT

SEZ Unit-2 , Plot no- 17, Phase 3, Hinjewadi Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune, Maharashtra, IN, 411057
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

About KPIT KPIT is reimagining the future of mobility, forging ahead with group companies and partners to shape a world that is cleaner, smarter, and safer. With over 25 years of specialized expertise in Mobility, KPIT is accelerating the transformation towards Software and AI-Defined Vehicles through its advanced solutions, platforms, and products—propelled by mobility-infused AI frameworks, software craftsmanship, and systems integration mastery. Vision in Motion Fueled by 2000+ vehicle production programs and powering 20+ million vehicles on the road with KPIT software, our experience in unmatched. At the same time, we push boundaries, developing solutions that enable Mobility OEMs to innovate at speed and scale. For more details, visit www.kpit.com

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 16,535
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gnome-foundation.jpeg
GNOME Foundation
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/kpit.jpeg
KPIT
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
GNOME Foundation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
KPIT
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GNOME Foundation in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for KPIT in 2026.

Incident History — GNOME Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GNOME Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

KPIT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/gnome-foundation.jpeg
GNOME Foundation
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network-based exploitation with low complexity
Motivation: Denial of Service
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/kpit.jpeg
KPIT
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

KPIT company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to GNOME Foundation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

GNOME Foundation company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas KPIT company has not reported any.

In the current year, KPIT company and GNOME Foundation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither KPIT company nor GNOME Foundation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither KPIT company nor GNOME Foundation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither KPIT company nor GNOME Foundation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

GNOME Foundation company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while KPIT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither GNOME Foundation company nor KPIT company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

KPIT company employs more people globally than GNOME Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds HIPAA certification.

Neither GNOME Foundation nor KPIT holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N