Comparison Overview

IGT

VS

DiDi

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 0 and 549

IGT is a leading global provider of gaming, digital and financial technology solutions, formed through the combination of International Game Technology PLC’s Gaming & Digital Business and Everi Holdings Inc. IGT’s offering spans gaming machines, game content and systems, iGaming, sports betting, cash access, loyalty and player engagement solutions, enabling it to deliver integrated, customer-centric experiences across land-based and digital environments. Organized into Gaming, Digital and FinTech business units, IGT drives innovation, efficiency and value for casino, digital and hospitality operators worldwide. The company is headquartered in Las Vegas.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 9,833
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

DiDi

-, Global, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

DiDi Global Inc. is a leading mobility technology platform. It offers a wide range of app-based services across Asia Pacific, Latin America, and other global markets, including ride hailing, taxi hailing, designated driving, hitch and other forms of shared mobility as well as certain energy and vehicle services, food delivery, and intra-city freight services. DiDi provides car owners, drivers, and delivery partners with flexible work and income opportunities. It is committed to collaborating with policymakers, the taxi industry, the automobile industry, and the communities to solve the world’s transportation, environmental, and employment challenges through the use of AI technology and localized smart transportation innovations. DiDi strives to create better life experiences and greater social value, by building a safe, inclusive, and sustainable transportation and local services ecosystem for cities of the future.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 29,134
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igt.jpeg
IGT
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/didiglobal.jpeg
DiDi
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
IGT
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DiDi
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

IGT has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DiDi in 2025.

Incident History — IGT (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IGT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — DiDi (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DiDi cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igt.jpeg
IGT
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/didiglobal.jpeg
DiDi
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2021
Type:Breach
Motivation: Regulatory Enforcement, Data Privacy Compliance, Investor Protection
Blog: Blog

FAQ

DiDi company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to IGT company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

IGT company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to DiDi company.

In the current year, IGT company has reported more cyber incidents than DiDi company.

IGT company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while DiDi company has not reported such incidents publicly.

DiDi company has disclosed at least one data breach, while IGT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither DiDi company nor IGT company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither IGT company nor DiDi company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

IGT company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to DiDi company.

DiDi company employs more people globally than IGT company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds HIPAA certification.

Neither IGT nor DiDi holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.