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

Comparison Overview

LannerLanner
VS
TencentTencent
Lanner

Lanner

2 Cornwall St, Birmingham, B3 2DX, GB

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.lanner.com
751/1000Fair

Lanner are experts at capturing your business processs and making them work to deliver your business strategy through advanced analytical techniques. For over 20 years Lanner's customers have been developing predictive digital twins and using simulation technology to so...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:33
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tencent

Tencent

Tencent Seafront Towers, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, CN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
729/1000Moderate

Tencent is a world-leading internet and technology company that develops innovative products and services to improve the quality of life of people around the world. Founded in 1998 with its headquarters in Shenzhen, China, Tencent's guiding principle is to use technolo...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:89,363
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lanner

Lanner

-
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
Tencent

Tencent

-
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 Lanner in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tencent in 2026.

Incidents

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

Lanner 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 - Tencent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tencent 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...
Lanner

Lanner

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tencent

Tencent

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TENMYSTWITENCANADODEEFRIUNIBRA1769520245
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEN1292112102725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12814
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Comfast CF-WR631AX V3 up to 2.7.0.8. This issue affects the function system of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?section=ping_config of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument destination causes os command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12813
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in activepieces up to 0.83.0. This vulnerability affects the function handleUrlFile in the library packages/server/engine/src/lib/variables/processors/file.ts of the component File URL Handler. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12812
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Radware Cyber Controller up to 10.11.0. This affects an unknown part of the component HTML Report Generation. The manipulation leads to HTML injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-12811
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in kortix-ai suna up to 0.8.38. Affected by this issue is the function router.replace/router.push of the file apps/frontend/src/app/auth/page.tsx of the component Auth Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument returnURL can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 0.8.39 can resolve this issue. This patch is called f5dec7aa0c1b8fa0125938f292c0f2430ca75f6c. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The researcher explains: "The issue was fixed in v0.8.39 without notifying the wider user base via a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12810
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Edimax BR-6478AC V2 1.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function mp of the file /goform/mp of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument command results in command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8