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

Comparison Overview

Google PlayGoogle Play
VS
VerizonVerizon
Google Play

Google Play

https://play.google.com/store, New York, 10002, US

Last Update: 07/05/2026

View Profile
394/1000Critical

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:184
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3
Verizon

Verizon

One Verizon Way, Basking Ridge, 07920-1097, US

Last Update: 25/07/2026

View Profile
377/1000Critical

We get you. You want more out of a career. A place to share your ideas freely — even if they’re daring or different. Where the true you can learn, grow, and thrive. You’ll find all that here. Because we empower you. We power and empower how people live, work and play ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:101,992
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
18
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Google Play

Google Play

-
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
Verizon

Verizon

-
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 Google Play in 2026.

Incidents

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

Verizon has 482.52% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Google Play cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Verizon 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...
Google Play

Google Play

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOO1778157015
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GOO000022525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GOO001120824
Verizon

Verizon

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
VERONE1784967835
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
VER1779352298
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
VERGOOECL1773851169

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9