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

Comparison Overview

IGTIGT
VS
Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
IGT

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.IGT.com
568/1000Very Poor

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...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:10,303
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
475/1000Critical

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entiti...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,782
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IGT

IGT

-
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
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

-
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 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Pitney Bowes has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

IGT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pitney Bowes 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

IGT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2192021112025
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2502025112125
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIT1777335822
🔒 Incident : Breach
CARHOLPRI1776630318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9