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

Comparison Overview

IGT Gaming APACIGT Gaming APAC
VS
AmdocsAmdocs
IGT Gaming APAC

IGT Gaming APAC

Talavera Rd, Macquarie Park, 2113, AU

Last Update: 29/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.igt.com.au/
753/1000Fair

Welcome to IGT Gaming APAC, a dedicated platform created specifically to keep gaming industry professionals up to date with the latest trends, developments, and opportunities for club, hotel and casino markets, systems and Hardware business segments within the APAC regi...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Amdocs

Amdocs

1390 Timberlake Manor Parkway, Chesterfield, 63017, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.amdocs.com/about
724/1000Moderate

Who are we? Amdocs helps those who build the future to make it amazing. With our market-leading portfolio of software products and services, we unlock our customers’ innovative potential, empowering them to provide next-generation communication and media experiences for...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:34,243
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IGT Gaming APAC

IGT Gaming APAC

-
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
Amdocs

Amdocs

-
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 IGT Gaming APAC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Amdocs has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - IGT Gaming APAC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IGT Gaming APAC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Amdocs 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...
IGT Gaming APAC

IGT Gaming APAC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Amdocs

Amdocs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SALLASAMDSNOSONOKT1773153462

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8