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

Comparison Overview

Ingram Micro LifecycleIngram Micro Lifecycle
VS
IBMIBM
Ingram Micro Lifecycle

Ingram Micro Lifecycle

3351 Michelson Dr, None, Irvine, California, US, 92612

Last Update: 04/12/2025

View Profile
751/1000Fair

In recent years, the demand for services to manage and extend the life of technology products has increased sharply. In response, Ingram Micro Lifecycle offers state-of-the-art solutions to address the return, refurbishment, repair and remarketing of technology products...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:134
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
IBM

IBM

International Business Machines Corp., Armonk, New York, 10504, US

Last Update: 01/10/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.ibm.com
323/1000Critical

At IBM, we do more than work. We create. We create as technologists, developers, and engineers. We create with our partners. We create with our competitors. If you're searching for ways to make the world work better through technology and infrastructure, software and co...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:336,062
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
13
Known data breaches
16
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ingram Micro Lifecycle

Ingram Micro Lifecycle

-
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
IBM

IBM

-
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 Ingram Micro Lifecycle in 2026.

Incidents

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

IBM has 1187.13% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Ingram Micro Lifecycle (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingram Micro Lifecycle cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

IBM 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...
Ingram Micro Lifecycle

Ingram Micro Lifecycle

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
IBM

IBM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
IBM1788298895
🔒 Incident : Breach
IBM1786584530
🔒 Incident : Breach
IBM1785357547

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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