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

Comparison Overview

LazadaLazada
VS
SnowflakeSnowflake
Lazada

Lazada

51 Bras Basah Road, Singapore, Singapore, SG, 189554

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.lazada.com/
801/1000Good

About Lazada Group Founded in 2012, Lazada Group is the leading eCommerce platform in Southeast Asia. We are accelerating progress in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam through commerce and technology. With the largest logistics and ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:21,530
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Snowflake

Snowflake

Menlo Park, CA, US, 94563

Last Update: 14/04/2026

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

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 Data Cloud, organizations unite their siloed data, easily discover and securely share governed d...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:10,807
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
19
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lazada

Lazada

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Lazada in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Snowflake has 566.67% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Lazada 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 - 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...
Lazada

Lazada

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Snowflake

Snowflake

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEN1779855877
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROCANOSNO1776126436
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANO1775660105

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA