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

Comparison Overview

inDriveinDrive
VS
AeCAeC
inDrive

inDrive

Mountain View, 94040, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.inDrive.com
782/1000Fair

inDrive is a global mobility and urban services platform. The inDrive app has been downloaded over 400 million times, and has been the second most downloaded mobility app for the third consecutive year. In addition to ride-hailing, inDrive provides an expanding list of ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,675
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AeC

AeC

Rua Espírito Santo, 871 - Bairro Centro, Belo Horizonte, 30160-031, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.aec.com.br
783/1000Fair

A AeC é apontada consistentemente como a líder brasileira na entrega de soluções de experiência do cliente e gestão de processos terceirizados. Servindo as principais marcas do mercado nacional, conquistou nos três últimos anos a posição de Empresa do Ano de BPO pela ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:34,614
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
inDrive

inDrive

-
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
AeC

AeC

-
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 inDrive in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for AeC in 2026.

Incidents

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

inDrive 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 - AeC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AeC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
inDrive

inDrive

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AeC

AeC

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2