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

Comparison Overview

GNOME FoundationGNOME Foundation
VS
PedidosYaPedidosYa
GNOME Foundation

GNOME Foundation

US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

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 d...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:134
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
PedidosYa

PedidosYa

La Cumparsita 1475, 11200 Montevideo, Departamento de Montevideo, Montevideo, Montevideo, UY, 11200

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
790/1000Fair

We’re  the delivery market leader in Latin America. Our platform connects over 77.000 restaurants, supermarkets, pharmacies and stores with millions of users. Nowadays we operate in more than 500 cities in Latinamerica. And we are now over 3.400 employees. PedidosYa is ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:13,651
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GNOME Foundation

GNOME Foundation

-
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
PedidosYa

PedidosYa

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GNOME Foundation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PedidosYa in 2026.

Incidents

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

GNOME Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

PedidosYa 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...
GNOME Foundation

GNOME Foundation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GNO138052625
PedidosYa

PedidosYa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81203
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=login2. The manipulation of the argument email leads to sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-80158
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the ipa_getkeytab module of the community.general Ansible collection. The module's bind_pw parameter, used to supply the LDAP simple-bind password when retrieving a Kerberos keytab, is not declared with no_log, unlike the sibling password parameter in the same module. As a consequence, the supplied IPA/LDAP bind password is recorded in cleartext in the managed host's system journal/syslog (the module's "Invoked with" record), is included in the module's return values and verbose (-v) output, and is displayed in Automation Controller / AWX job output. The password is additionally passed on the command line to the ipa-getkeytab helper (as --bindpw <value>), exposing it in the process list to local users while the command runs. An attacker able to read these logs, job output, or the process table can obtain the directory bind credential, potentially compromising the accounts and objects that credential can access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-75340
SUMMARY

The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forgery (SSRF).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-75338
SUMMARY

disconf (Distributed Configuration Management Platform) 2.6.36 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The config-fetching APIs /api/config/item, /api/config/file, /api/config/list and /api/config/simple/list are exposed without authentication. The LoginInterceptor explicitly whitelists these four paths, so any anonymous attacker can read every configuration item and configuration file managed by the config center.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-75336
SUMMARY

Funiture 1.0.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the backend tool interfaces /sys/tool/select.json and /sys/tool/update.json.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-26
UPDATED
Date2026-08-26
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA