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

Comparison Overview

GNU ProjectGNU Project
VS
LinkedInLinkedIn
GNU Project

GNU Project

N/A

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.gnu.org/
814/1000Good

The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software - software which respects your freedom. "Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free s...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:74
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

1000 W Maude, Sunnyvale, CA, US, 94085

Last Update: 21/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://careers.linkedin.com
799/1000Fair

Founded in 2003, LinkedIn connects the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. With more than 1 billion members worldwide, including executives from every Fortune 500 company, LinkedIn is the world's largest professional network. The company h...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:23,541
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GNU Project

GNU Project

-
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
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

-
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)

GNU Project has 88.68% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

LinkedIn has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - GNU Project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GNU Project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LinkedIn 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...
GNU Project

GNU Project

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GNU1773836738
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GNU1769439621
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GNU1769023602
LinkedIn

LinkedIn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIN1780863827
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LINMIC1780539842
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIN1773246240

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93291
SUMMARY

Omni C20 lacks proper certificate validation which could allow an attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack which could allow them to execute arbitrary code.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93290
SUMMARY

Omni C20 uses hard-coded credentials that could allow an attacker to monitor log files to obtain credentials to access information like mapping data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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-2026-93289
SUMMARY

The affected products are vulnerable to command injection attack that could allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute system commands during the pairing process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-88956
SUMMARY

The Botslab G980H dash camera firmware contains an authentication vulnerability in the root account exposed through the device's UART interface. The affected account does not require a password before granting access to a privileged system interface, and the interface also displays the device's WiFi password during startup. An unauthenticated attacker with physical access to the device could connect to the UART interface, obtain root privileges, and recover the WiFi password.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
0.9
CVE-2026-88761
SUMMARY

The Botslab G980H dash camera firmware generates the default WiFi password using predictable device information, portions of which are advertised by the product. An unauthenticated attacker within WiFi range could potentially determine the remaining password characters through limited guessing and gain unauthorized access to the device network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-24
UPDATED
Date2026-09-24
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
1.6