Igt vs Pitney-bowes - Cyber Risk Comparison & Security Rating

Comparison Overview

IGT

Pitney Bowes

IGT

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

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile

Between 550 and 599

http://www.IGT.com

594/1000Very 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

Known data breaches

Attack type number

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 27/09/2026

View Profile

Between 0 and 549

http://www.pitneybowes.com/us

500/1000Critical

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

Known data breaches

Attack type number

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category

IGT

ISO 27001Not verified

SOC2 Type 1Not verified

SOC2 Type 2Not verified

GDPRNot verified

PCI DSSNot verified

HIPAANot verified

Pitney Bowes

ISO 27001Not verified

SOC2 Type 1Not verified

SOC2 Type 2Not verified

GDPRNot verified

PCI DSSNot verified

HIPAANot verified

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 197.03% 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

Incidents

🔒 Incident : Ransomware

IGT2192021112025

🔒 Incident : Ransomware

IGT2502025112125

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-2026-96451

SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in Ultimate Member Ultimate Member ultimate-member allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects Ultimate Member: from n/a through 2.13.1.

PUBLISHED

Date2026-10-03

UPDATED

Date2026-10-03

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

IMPACT SCORE

5.9

EXPLOITABILITY

2.8

REFERENCES

https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/ultimate-member/vulnerability/wordpress-ultimate-member-plugin-2-13-1-privilege-escalation-vulnerability?_s_id=cve

CVE-2026-103342

SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Unlimited Elements Unlimited Elements For Elementor (Free Widgets, Addons, Templates) unlimited-elements-for-elementor allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Unlimited Elements For Elementor (Free Widgets, Addons, Templates): from n/a through 2.0.20.

PUBLISHED

Date2026-10-03

UPDATED

Date2026-10-03

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)

CVSS3

Base Score: 7.1

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

IMPACT SCORE

3.7

EXPLOITABILITY

2.8

REFERENCES

https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/unlimited-elements-for-elementor/vulnerability/wordpress-unlimited-elements-for-elementor-free-widgets-addons-templates-plugin-2-0-20-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve

CVE-2026-103065

SUMMARY

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input vulnerability in Themeum Kirki kirki allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects Kirki: from n/a through 6.3.1.

PUBLISHED

Date2026-10-03

UPDATED

Date2026-10-03

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)

CVSS3

Base Score: 8.2

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

IMPACT SCORE

4.2

EXPLOITABILITY

3.9

REFERENCES

https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/kirki/vulnerability/wordpress-kirki-plugin-6-3-1-arbitrary-code-execution-vulnerability?_s_id=cve

CVE-2026-105122

SUMMARY

OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers able to register or modify OAuth 2.0 clients to make OpenAM fetch internal resources via an unvalidated jwks_uri. Attackers can trigger unauthenticated fetches through client-authentication and ID-token validation to probe internal hosts, metadata endpoints or local files, or exhaust request threads for denial of service.

PUBLISHED

Date2026-10-03

UPDATED

Date2026-10-03

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)

CVSS3

Base Score: 5.4

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L

CVSS4

Base Score: 5.3

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/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

2.5

EXPLOITABILITY

2.8

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-105121

SUMMARY

OpenAM before 16.1.3 contains an improper authorization vulnerability that allows delegated administrators to destroy sessions outside their realms because realm checks use the requester's realm. Authenticated accounts holding the iplanet-am-session-destroy-sessions attribute can supply a target session identifier or handle to forcibly log out users in any realm.

PUBLISHED

Date2026-10-03

UPDATED

Date2026-10-03

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)

CVSS3

Base Score: 4.9

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CVSS4

Base Score: 6.9

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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

3.6

EXPLOITABILITY

1.2

REFERENCES