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

Comparison Overview

Hawk-Eye Innovations LtdHawk-Eye Innovations Ltd
VS
BinanceBinance
Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

Jays Close, Basingstoke, UK, RG22 4SB, GB

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

We are a group of inventors, mathematicians, developers, technical gurus, production experts, and above all sports fans who develop and deliver the most sophisticated officiating, production, tracking and analytics tools in sport. Beginning with tennis and cricket in ...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:1,318
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Binance

Binance

Everywhere, 0, OO

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.binance.com/
478/1000Critical

Binance is the world’s leading blockchain ecosystem and cryptocurrency infrastructure provider with a product suite that includes the world's largest digital asset exchange and much more. Trusted by over 200 millions of users worldwide, the Binance platform is dedicate...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,525
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

-
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
Binance

Binance

-
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 Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd in 2026.

Incidents

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

Binance has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Binance 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...
Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Binance

Binance

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
NETFACTIKBINONLMICAPPCONGOV1769182444
🔒 Incident : Breach
YAHFACTIKNETMICONLBINCAN1769189638
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BIN1766986758

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2