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

Comparison Overview

IGT SolutionsIGT Solutions
VS
Diebold NixdorfDiebold Nixdorf
IGT Solutions

IGT Solutions

Sector 32 Road, Plot 49, Echelon Building, Gurugram, Haryana, IN, 122 001

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
797/1000Fair

IGT Solutions is a next-gen customer experience (CX) company, defining and delivering AI-led transformative experiences for the global and most innovative brands using digital technologies. With the combination of Digital and Human Intelligence, IGT becomes the preferre...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18,246
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

350 Orchard Ave NE, North Canton, 44720, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://DieboldNixdorf.com
673/1000Weak

Diebold Nixdorf automates, digitizes and transforms the way people bank and shop. Its integrated solutions connect digital and physical channels conveniently, securely and efficiently for millions of consumers every day. As an innovation partner for nearly all of the ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:20,251
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
IGT Solutions

IGT Solutions

-
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
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IGT Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Diebold Nixdorf in 2026.

Incidents

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

IGT Solutions 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 - Diebold Nixdorf (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Diebold Nixdorf 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 Solutions

IGT Solutions

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Diebold Nixdorf

Diebold Nixdorf

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIE1772015252
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
DIE000081024
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DIE84429723

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56355
SUMMARY

GNU Savannah Administration Savane through 3.17 uses untrusted data as part of authorization.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-56347
SUMMARY

AVideo TopMenu plugin through version 26.0 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in menu item rendering due to missing output encoding of icon classes, URLs, and text labels. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript through unescaped menu item fields that execute for all site visitors, potentially stealing session cookies or performing unauthorized actions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56346
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 25.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the decryptMessage.json.php endpoint that allows unauthenticated users to decrypt PGP messages. Remote attackers can submit private keys, ciphertext, and passphrases to perform server-side decryption without credentials, exposing key material to logs and enabling resource exhaustion attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-56345
SUMMARY

AVideo through 29.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the Meet plugin's uploadRecordedVideo.json.php endpoint that derives the target users_id from the uploaded filename without verification. An attacker with knowledge of the Meet shared secret can craft a malicious file upload with a filename containing an arbitrary users_id to invoke passwordless User->login() and establish an authenticated session as any user including admin. Attackers can obtain the Meet shared secret through path-traversal vulnerabilities or timing attacks against checkToken.json.php, then POST a crafted file to uploadRecordedVideo.json.php with a filename like '1-anything.mp4' to hijack admin sessions and gain full account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-56342
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 27.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in plugin/Live/test.php that allows authenticated administrators to read arbitrary URLs via the statsURL parameter, which lacks isSSRFSafeURL() validation and accepts requests to private IP ranges and cloud metadata endpoints. Attackers can exploit this by crafting requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints like 169.254.169.254, and localhost to retrieve sensitive information including IAM credentials, internal service responses, and network configuration details.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3