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

Comparison Overview

Honey Badger HQHoney Badger HQ
VS
Juniper NetworksJuniper Networks
Honey Badger HQ

Honey Badger HQ

Menlo Park, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://honeybadgerhq.com
750/1000Fair

Honey Badger is a powerful risk intelligence platform that connects businesses to a global network of identity, fraud, credit and compliance data. Our suite of Risk Insights powers real-time decisions across fraud prevention, identity verification, age verification, cre...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:8
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Juniper Networks

Juniper Networks

1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, CA, US, 94089

Last Update: 10/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.juniper.net
641/1000Poor

Juniper Networks is leading the revolution in networking, making it one of the most exciting technology companies in Silicon Valley today. Since being founded by Pradeep Sindhu, Dennis Ferguson, and Bjorn Liencres nearly 20 years ago, Juniper’s sole mission has been to ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:10,258
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Honey Badger HQ

Honey Badger HQ

-
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
Juniper Networks

Juniper Networks

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Honey Badger HQ in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Juniper Networks has 177.78% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Honey Badger HQ (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Honey Badger HQ 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 - Juniper Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Juniper Networks 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...
Honey Badger HQ

Honey Badger HQ

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Juniper Networks

Juniper Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
JUN1775809436
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JUNALI1773930337
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
JUN1772173422

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44541
SUMMARY

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. From version 2.33.0 to before version 2.84.5, there is a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via the fides_description override. This issue has been patched in version 2.84.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49141
SUMMARY

WACRM prior to commit 73041bf contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the automation engine that allows authenticated attackers to access and modify contacts belonging to other tenants by supplying an arbitrary caller-controlled contact_id in the POST request body without tenant ownership verification. Attackers can exploit the service-role client that bypasses row-level security to modify victim contact fields including name, email, and company across tenant boundaries using only a known contact UUID.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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
1.8
CVE-2026-47345
SUMMARY

Namespace attributes are not encoded correctly during HTML serialization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47344
SUMMARY

When ALLOW_INSECURE_RAW_TEXT is enabled, whitespace-variant closing tags (e.g., </style\t>) are not recognized by the sanitizer but accepted by browsers as valid end tags, allowing subsequent content to escape sanitization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-46484
SUMMARY

Headplane is a feature-complete Web UI for Headscale. Prior to versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3, Headplane was vulnerable to a path traversal / authorization bypass in the Headscale API client used by node and user rename operations. This issue has been patched in versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
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