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

Comparison Overview

Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司
VS
NVIDIANVIDIA
Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

桃園市蘆竹區南青路1188號, 桃園市, 33066, TW

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

鴻佰科技股份有限公司(Ingrasys Inc.)是富士康科技集團(Foxconn Technology Group)的子公司,是世界級智慧型雲網服務產品之技術領導者,提供廣泛的產品和服務,包括伺服器、儲存裝置、高性能計算加速器和創新的環境友善解決方案,協助全球客戶滿足使用需求。公司已獲得AS9100認證,確保提供高品質的航太產品和服務。更多資訊,請參考鴻佰科技相關網站: -> Ingrasys Inc.:https://www.ingrasys.com/ -> LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/c...

NAICS:3341
NAICS Definition:Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
Employees:689
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
NVIDIA

NVIDIA

2701 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, 95050, US

Last Update: 02/08/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nvidia.com
792/1000Fair

Since its founding in 1993, NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA) has been a pioneer in accelerated computing. The company’s invention of the GPU in 1999 sparked the growth of the PC gaming market, redefined computer graphics, ignited the era of modern AI and is fueling the creation of...

NAICS:3341
NAICS Definition:Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
Employees:50,410
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

-
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
NVIDIA

NVIDIA

-
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 Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

NVIDIA has 870.87% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

NVIDIA 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...
Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
NVIDIA

NVIDIA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
NVI1785342276
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
NVI1781685010
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SER1781072827

FAQ

Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 company and NVIDIA company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 and NVIDIA, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 and NVIDIA, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 or NVIDIA ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 or NVIDIA ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 and NVIDIA, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Ingrasys 鴻佰科技股份有限公司 and NVIDIA, 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