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

Comparison Overview

Jamf PartnersJamf Partners
VS
Xiaomi TechnologyXiaomi Technology
Jamf Partners

Jamf Partners

100 Washington Square, 100 Washington Ave S #900, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Last Update: 26/06/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

The Jamf Partner Community is committed to empowering partners with the resources, support, and enablement they need to succeed in selling and deploying Jamf’s innovative Apple device management and security solutions. With over 20 years of experience in device managem...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Xiaomi Technology

Xiaomi Technology

No. 33 Xi erqi Middle Road, Haidian District, Beijing,100085,China, Beijing, CN

Last Update: 26/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.mi.com/global
807/1000Good

Xiaomi Corporation was founded in April 2010 and listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on July 9, 2018 (1810.HK). Xiaomi is a consumer electronics and smart manufacturing company with smartphones and smart hardware connected by an IoT platform at its ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:23,777
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jamf Partners

Jamf Partners

-
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
Xiaomi Technology

Xiaomi Technology

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jamf Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Xiaomi Technology has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Jamf Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jamf Partners 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 - Xiaomi Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Xiaomi Technology 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...
Jamf Partners

Jamf Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Xiaomi Technology

Xiaomi Technology

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OPPXIAAND1772310272
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
XIA1768816067
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
XIA605062425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8