Comparison Overview
HCSS

HCSS
13151 W. Airport Blvd., Sugar Land, 77478, US
Last Update: 19/06/2026
Since 1986, HCSS been developing software to help construction companies streamline their operations. Today, HCSS is recognized as a pioneer and leader in the market, serving thousands of construction companies across the nation. Year after year, they continue to innova...

Pitney Bowes
27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US
Last Update: 29/04/2026
Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entiti...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

HCSS







Pitney Bowes






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for HCSS in 2026.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Pitney Bowes has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - HCSS (X = Date, Y = Severity)
HCSS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Pitney Bowes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

HCSS

Pitney Bowes
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.