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

Comparison Overview

HumiSealHumiSeal
VS
FoxconnFoxconn
HumiSeal

HumiSeal

377 University Ave, Westwood, 02090, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
747/1000Moderate

For over 50 years, 𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗦𝗲𝗮𝗹®, a Chase Electronic Coatings brand, has focused exclusively on 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀, providing advanced protection for printed circuit boards, electronics, and sensitive components. As a niche specialist, we partner wi...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:61
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Foxconn

Foxconn

US

Last Update: 18/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.foxconn.com
547/1000Critical

Established in Taiwan in 1974, Hon Hai Technology Group (Foxconn) (2317: Taiwan) is the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Foxconn is also the leading technological solution provider, and it continuously leverages its expertise in software and hardware to integra...

NAICS:335
NAICS Definition:Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
Employees:96,074
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
HumiSeal

HumiSeal

-
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
Foxconn

Foxconn

-
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 Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HumiSeal in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Foxconn has 277.36% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

HumiSeal 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 - Foxconn (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Foxconn 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...
HumiSeal

HumiSeal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Foxconn

Foxconn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
GOOFOXAPP1778617574
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
UNIWESFOX1780562007
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ANTFOX7-ECARGIT1781576848

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56078
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56077
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
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:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56076
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56075
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56074
SUMMARY

PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-18
UPDATED
Date2026-06-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8