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

Comparison Overview

JoyfillJoyfill
VS
Cox Automotive Inc.Cox Automotive Inc.
Joyfill

Joyfill

Orlando, 32801, US

Last Update: 29/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://joyfill.io
734/1000Moderate

We make it easy to build form experiences into your web and mobile apps without thousands of development hours. From simple documents to large complex dynamic forms. We’ve got you covered. Deploy an entire form solution into your applications in hours, not months, or en...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:13
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive Inc.

3003 Summit Blvd., 200, Atlanta, GA, US, 30319

Last Update: 30/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.coxautoinc.com/
775/1000Fair

Cox Automotive is the world’s largest automotive services and technology provider. Fueled by the largest breadth of first- and third-party data fed by 2.3 billion online interactions a year, Cox Automotive tailors leading solutions for car shoppers, auto manufacturers, ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,006
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Joyfill

Joyfill

-
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
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive Inc.

-
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)

Joyfill has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Automotive Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

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

Joyfill cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Cox Automotive Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Automotive Inc. 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...
Joyfill

Joyfill

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JOY1785342538
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89096
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in nfs-utils. An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger a Denial of Service (DoS) by sending repeated state notification requests to an exposed rpc.statd service. The service fails to properly release memory allocated during callback processing, leading to continuous memory growth. Sustained requests can exhaust system resources, eventually causing the service to degrade or crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-89088
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow exists in libparted's file system resizing logic when handling FAT16 volumes. By convincing a user or administrator to resize a specially crafted FAT16 file system image with malformed directory metadata, an attacker can trigger an oversized read into a fixed-size memory buffer. This issue causes memory corruption, resulting in an application crash and a denial of service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-89085
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in parted. A heap-based buffer overflow can occur when processing a specially crafted FAT32 filesystem due to an integer calculation error during buffer allocation. A local attacker could exploit this by enticing a user or automated service to open a malicious filesystem image, resulting in an application crash leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential memory corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-17591
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in libarchive. An attacker can cause a Denial of Service (DoS) or potential information disclosure due to a use-after-free vulnerability, which occurs when a program reads memory that has already been released. This issue arises when the archive_entry_copy_mac_metadata() function deallocates an internal buffer before completing a data copy. An attacker who can supply input to an application utilizing this function can trigger the flaw to crash the application or read uninitialized memory data.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-111802
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Nautilus. When a removable drive or disk image is unmounted or ejected, Nautilus prompts the user to empty the trash without verifying whether the trash directory paths are symbolic links. An attacker can exploit this flaw by tricking a user into mounting a crafted storage volume and confirming the prompt to empty the trash, leading to the arbitrary deletion of files accessible to that user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-16
UPDATED
Date2026-10-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.3