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

Comparison Overview

Hammer CybersecurityHammer Cybersecurity
VS
Cox EnterprisesCox Enterprises
Hammer Cybersecurity

Hammer Cybersecurity

Innovation House, Bellringer Road, Trentham Lakes South, Stoke-on-Trent, England, GB, ST4 8GH

Last Update: 21/04/2026

View Profile
756/1000Fair

Hammer Cybersecurity helps organisations stay resilient in a landscape where threats evolve daily. With more than 35 years’ experience supporting channel partners across the UK, Ireland, and Europe, we deliver market-leading security solutions that protect businesses en...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

6305 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, Atlanta, 30328, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
688/1000Weak

Thousands of employees, one goal: empower people today to build a better future for the next generation. How do we do that? By disrupting industries. By treating our employees as our most important resource. By improving the quality of life in our communities and by pro...

NAICS:51
NAICS Definition:Information
Employees:35,429
Subsidiaries:28
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hammer Cybersecurity

Hammer Cybersecurity

-
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
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

-
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 Media Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Hammer Cybersecurity in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cox Enterprises in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hammer Cybersecurity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hammer Cybersecurity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Cox Enterprises (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Enterprises 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...
Hammer Cybersecurity

Hammer Cybersecurity

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cox Enterprises

Cox Enterprises

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
COX53102453112425
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
COX1495114112425

FAQ

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