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

Comparison Overview

Intel DeveloperIntel Developer
VS
NXP SemiconductorsNXP Semiconductors
Intel Developer

Intel Developer

2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, California, US, 95054

Last Update: 26/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ai.intel.com
774/1000Fair

AI is rapidly evolving and transforming how we live today. Intel is your trusted partner in bringing AI everywhere with a comprehensive suite of CPUs, GPUs, AI accelerators, and a broad software portfolio designed to support you at every stage of your AI journey. From e...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

High Tech Campus 60, Eindhoven, 5656 AG, NL

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nxp.com
756/1000Fair

We anticipate tomorrow’s needs—navigating a changing world by bringing together technology's brightest minds to build game-changing solutions that propel us forward. NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NASDAQ: NXPI) is the trusted partner for innovative solutions in the automotive...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:22,465
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Intel Developer

Intel Developer

-
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
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intel Developer in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

NXP Semiconductors has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Intel Developer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intel Developer 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 - NXP Semiconductors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NXP Semiconductors 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...
Intel Developer

Intel Developer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NPMGITNXPMIC1779193496
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
NXPTHASTM1775572928
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8