Comparison Overview

Grafana Labs

VS

Alibaba Group

Grafana Labs

29 Broadway, Penthouse, New York, NY, US, 10006
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 750 and 799

Grafana Labs, the company behind the open observability cloud, is founded on the principles of open source, open standards, open ecosystems, and open culture. Grafana Cloud, our fully managed observability platform, is flexible and built for scale, enabling organizations to see, understand, and act on all their disparate data so they can move at the speed of their ambitions. Today, more than 25 million users and 7,000+ customers – including Anthropic, Bloomberg, NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Salesforce – trust Grafana Labs to ensure reliability of their applications and systems, resolve incidents quickly, and optimize their telemetry to reduce noise and cost. We are a 100% remote company with 1,400+ team members across 40+ countries, and we’re backed by leading investors including Lightspeed Venture Partners, Sequoia Capital, GIC, Coatue, J.P. Morgan, CapitalG, and Lead Edge Capital. Follow Grafana Labs on LinkedIn and Twitter or visit grafana.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 1,772
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Alibaba Group

969 West Wen Yi Road, Hangzhou, 311121, CN
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

🌍Alibaba Group is on a mission to make it easy to do business anywhere! Guided by our passion and imagination, we’re leading the way in AI, cloud computing and e-commerce. We aim to build the future infrastructure of commerce, and we aspire to be a good company that lasts for 102 years.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 84,233
Subsidiaries: 35
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grafana-labs.jpeg
Grafana Labs
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/chinese-alibaba-group.jpeg
Alibaba Group
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
Grafana Labs
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Alibaba Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grafana Labs in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alibaba Group in 2026.

Incident History — Grafana Labs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grafana Labs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Alibaba Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alibaba Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grafana-labs.jpeg
Grafana Labs
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, SCIM Provisioning Misconfiguration
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Client-side open redirect
Motivation: Account takeover, execution of malicious plugins
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chinese-alibaba-group.jpeg
Alibaba Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2023
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Server-based data exfiltration
Motivation: Cyber espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 01/2020
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unauthenticated Elastic Search Engine Instances
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Alibaba Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Grafana Labs company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Alibaba Group company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Grafana Labs company.

In the current year, Alibaba Group company and Grafana Labs company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Alibaba Group company nor Grafana Labs company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Alibaba Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Grafana Labs company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Alibaba Group company nor Grafana Labs company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Grafana Labs company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Alibaba Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Alibaba Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Grafana Labs company.

Alibaba Group company employs more people globally than Grafana Labs company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Grafana Labs nor Alibaba Group 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