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

Comparison Overview

LeapFrogLeapFrog
VS
Samsung ElectronicsSamsung Electronics
LeapFrog

LeapFrog

2200 Powell Street, Emeryville, California, 94608, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.leapfrog.com
757/1000Fair

LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. is an education innovator and a leading developer of educational entertainment for children. LeapFrog’s award-winning product portfolio is designed to help every child achieve their full potential by delivering best-in-class curriculum through...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:472
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

129 Samsung-ro, Suwon-Si, 443-742, KR

Last Update: 04/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.samsung.com
748/1000Moderate

Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medica...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:167,492
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LeapFrog

LeapFrog

-
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
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

-
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 Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LeapFrog in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Samsung Electronics has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

LeapFrog cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Samsung Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Electronics 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...
LeapFrog

LeapFrog

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LEA152822522
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MERCHESAMCOMFOXATTFORTOY1781713752
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM5932959110525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIM4992449100425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
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:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1