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

Comparison Overview

LacedLaced
VS
Universal Orlando ResortUniversal Orlando Resort
Laced

Laced

39 Earlham Street, London, WC2H 9LT, GB

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lacedaudio.com
761/1000Fair

AUDIO SERVICES | RECORD LABEL | MUSIC PUBLISHING | CATALOGUE Laced is a full-service creative agency specialising in audio and music for video games and moving media. Our team is made up of musicians, sound designers, music producers, music supervisors and project man...

NAICS:71
NAICS Definition:Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees:21
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Universal Orlando Resort

Universal Orlando Resort

1000 Universal Studios Plaza, Orlando, 32819, US

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
789/1000Fair

For years, we’ve been creating a legacy of unforgettable experiences for our Guests. Our Guests are immersed into the sights and sounds of some of the greatest movies and most legendary stories, and our Team Members are the ones who help make those incredible experience...

NAICS:71
NAICS Definition:Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees:12,710
Subsidiaries:44
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Laced

Laced

-
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
Universal Orlando Resort

Universal Orlando Resort

-
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 Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Laced in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Universal Orlando Resort in 2026.

Incidents

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

Laced 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 - Universal Orlando Resort (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Universal Orlando Resort 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...
Laced

Laced

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Universal Orlando Resort

Universal Orlando Resort

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2