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

Comparison Overview

Niumba de TripAdvisorNiumba de TripAdvisor
VS
ProsusProsus
Niumba de TripAdvisor

Niumba de TripAdvisor

Calle Foxá 25 2º B, Madrid, Madrid, 28046, ES

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.niumba.com
764/1000Fair

Niumba.com es un negocio de Grupo Intercom cuya misión es poner en contacto a nuestros usuarios con la página web de todos los apartamentos de España. El equipo de Niumba.com lo forman una serie de profesionales del mundo de internet, con amplios conocimientos sector...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:5
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Prosus

Prosus

Gustav Mahlerplein 5, Amsterdam, North Holland, NL, 1082MS

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://prosus.com
789/1000Fair

Prosus is the power behind the world’s leading lifestyle e-commerce brands. Bringing together bold ideas and the power of AI, Prosus builds technology ecosystems where lifestyle ecommerce brands can become global success stories. These ecosystems span three core geogra...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,350
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Niumba de TripAdvisor

Niumba de TripAdvisor

-
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
Prosus

Prosus

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Niumba de TripAdvisor in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Prosus in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Niumba de TripAdvisor (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Niumba de TripAdvisor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Prosus 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...
Niumba de TripAdvisor

Niumba de TripAdvisor

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Prosus

Prosus

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8