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

Comparison Overview

Happy Hacking SpaceHappy Hacking Space
VS
World VisionWorld Vision
Happy Hacking Space

Happy Hacking Space

TALAYTEPE MAH. 4009/1 SOKAK, Diyarbakir, 21070, TR

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://happyhacking.space
747/1000Moderate

At Happy Hacking Space, we’re all about experimenting, building, and learning together. You don’t need to be an expert to start—you just need to be curious. Come hack, craft, and explore with us. The universe is full of possibilities, and we’re here to uncover them, one...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:4
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
World Vision

World Vision

London, GB

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.wvi.org
812/1000Good

World Vision is the largest child-focused private charity in the world. Our 33,000+ staff members working in nearly 100 countries have united with our incredible supporters to impact the lives of over 200 million vulnerable children by tackling the root causes of povert...

NAICS:8135
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19,157
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Happy Hacking Space

Happy Hacking Space

-
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
World Vision

World Vision

-
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 Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

Happy Hacking Space has 37.5% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Non-profit Organizations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for World Vision in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Happy Hacking Space (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Happy Hacking Space cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - World Vision (X = Date, Y = Severity)

World Vision 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...
Happy Hacking Space

Happy Hacking Space

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
HAP1770036164
World Vision

World Vision

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8