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

Comparison Overview

KongKong
VS
BoltBolt
Kong

Kong

San Francisco, 94105, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Powering the API World. No AI without APIs. Kong enables any company to become an API-first company. Kong’s unified cloud native API platform is easy to use and works in any environment — unleashing developer productivity, automating security, and boosting performance ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:922
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Bolt

Bolt

Tallinn, EE

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://bolt.eu
711/1000Moderate

At Bolt, we're building a future where people don’t need to own personal cars to move around safely and conveniently. A future where people have the freedom to use transport on demand, choosing whatever vehicle's best for each occasion — be it a car, scooter, or e-bike....

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:16,012
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Kong

Kong

-
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
Bolt

Bolt

-
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 Kong in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Bolt has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Kong cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Bolt 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...
Kong

Kong

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
KON301062025
Bolt

Bolt

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOL1776825169

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9