Comparison Overview

Google Play

VS

Avaya

Google Play

https://play.google.com/store, None, New York, NY, US, 10002
Last Update: 2025-11-20

Enjoy millions of the latest Android apps, games, music, movies, TV, books, magazines & more.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 187
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Avaya

350 Mount Kemble Ave, Morristown, New Jersey, 07960, US
Last Update: 2025-11-20

At Avaya, we give our customers the freedom to take their business in the directions that benefit them most. We provide the paths for both customers and their employees where every moment big and small can drive in the moment, memorable experiences. The journey is theirs at the pace that makes sense for them with the innovation without disruption they need now and the solutions they can invest in the future.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 12,617
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/google-play.jpeg
Google Play
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/avaya.jpeg
Avaya
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
Google Play
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Avaya
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Google Play has 270.37% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

No incidents recorded for Avaya in 2025.

Incident History — Google Play (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Google Play cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Avaya cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/google-play.jpeg
Google Play
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious App
Motivation: Data Theft, Blackmail
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Mobile Application
Motivation: Blackmail, Harassment, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Mobile Applications
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avaya.jpeg
Avaya
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Avaya company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Google Play company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Google Play company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Avaya company has not reported any.

In the current year, Google Play company has reported more cyber incidents than Avaya company.

Google Play company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Avaya company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google Play company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Avaya company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Google Play company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Avaya company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Google Play company nor Avaya company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Avaya company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Google Play company.

Avaya company employs more people globally than Google Play company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Google Play nor Avaya holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H