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

Comparison Overview

Hewlett Packard EnterpriseHewlett Packard Enterprise
VS
Zebra TechnologiesZebra Technologies
Hewlett Packard Enterprise

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

1701 E Mossy Oaks Rd Spring, Houston, Texas, US, 77389

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://hpe.com
779/1000Fair

Official LinkedIn of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, the global edge-to-cloud company. Sharing our passion and purpose through technology and innovation.

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:84,415
Subsidiaries:31
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
Zebra Technologies

Zebra Technologies

3 Overlook Point, Lincolnshire, IL, US, 60069

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.zebra.com
780/1000Fair

Zebra provides the foundation for intelligent operations with an award-winning portfolio of connected frontline, asset visibility and automation solutions. Organizations globally across retail, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, healthcare, and other industries r...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:11,660
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Hewlett Packard Enterprise

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

-
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
Zebra Technologies

Zebra Technologies

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Hewlett Packard Enterprise has 96.08% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Zebra Technologies in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hewlett Packard Enterprise (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hewlett Packard Enterprise cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Zebra Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zebra Technologies 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...
Hewlett Packard Enterprise

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
HEW1772540968
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
HEW1770906520
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
HEW1769152921
Zebra Technologies

Zebra Technologies

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56785
SUMMARY

FlatPress versions prior to commit 10be83c, contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in comment and contact forms where name, URL, and email fields are rendered without proper output encoding in Smarty templates. Attackers can inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript through these fields to execute malicious scripts in browsers of viewers including administrators, or bypass URL scheme validation to inject javascript: or data: URIs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54588
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 use the attacker-controlled `HTTP_HOST` request header as the authoritative source for building callback URLs in its OIDC, SAML, and logout authentication flows without any validation. An unauthenticated attacker can poison the `redirect_uri` sent to the Identity Provider, causing the IdP to redirect the victim's authorization code to an attacker-controlled server - resulting in full account takeover with no credentials required. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-48493
SUMMARY

Snipe-IT is an IT asset/license management system. In versions prior to 8.6.0, a user with only users.edit can send a PATCH to /api/v1/users/{their_own_id} and grant themselves any permission except admin and superuser — for example `assets.view`, `assets.create`, `reports.view`, import, etc. The issue is patched in version 8.6.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-47693
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 are vulnerable to CSV Injection (Formula Injection) in its log export functionality. User-controlled data — specifically the username field — is written to exported CSV files without sanitizing formula trigger characters (=, +, -, @). When an administrator exports activity logs and opens the resulting CSV in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets), any formula stored in a username is executed by the application. This can be used for phishing attacks against administrators or data exfiltration. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-12164
SUMMARY

Fortra File Integrity Monitoring (FIM), formerly Tripwire Enterprise, versions prior to 9.4.0 may assign incorrect or elevated effective permissions to users created by the tetool import command while FIM is running, particularly when the import also creates or changes roles or role-permission relationships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
0.8