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
SnowflakeSnowflake
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
Snowflake

Snowflake

The Cloud, US

Last Update: 26/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.snowflake.com
100/1000Critical

**Snowflake is proud to be the Official Data Collaboration Provider for LA28 and Team USA.** Snowflake delivers the AI Data Cloud — a global network where thousands of organizations mobilize data with near-unlimited scale, concurrency, and performance. Inside the AI Da...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,567
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
20
Attack type number
4

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
Snowflake

Snowflake

-
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 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Snowflake has 880.39% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Snowflake (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Snowflake 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...
Joyfill

Joyfill

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
JOY1785342538
Snowflake

Snowflake

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SNOVERMICATTDLI1790382515
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OPESNOSALHUG1789396374
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SNOGIT1787203094

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8