Comparison Overview

Lightfleet Corporation

VS

Duna

Lightfleet Corporation

4800 NW Camas Meadows Drive, Camas, Washington, 98607, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Lightfleet Corporation is a privately held technology company founded in 2003 and located in Camas, Washington. Lightfleet has been developing a new, faster and more efficient way to connect essentially unlimited numbers of computers together. It will allow the vast numbers of computers now in use in the cloud, big data, big computing, server farms, high performance computing (HPC), super-computing and secure applications to communicate faster, be used more efficiently, and work more securely. Lightfleet’s Multiflo™ Data Distribution System (DDS) is based on the new concept of Self-Directed Data Flow. Multiflo accomplishes the same basic functions as a traditional switched fabric, but does so more efficiently and with lower latency. Unlike those fabrics, the native mode for data movement in the Multiflo architecture is multicast.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 15
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Duna

Bul. 8-mi Septemvri No. 18, Skopje, 1000, MK
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 800 and 849

Duna is a leading Macedonian IT company, which provides complete integration and maintenance in companies, mobile solutions and document management. During its last 17 years, Duna has developed itself into an expert on corporative projects and has become known for its mobile software distribution solutions. Duna is an exclusive importer of world famous brands - Apple, RICOH, OKI, Psion, Clasus Interactive Whiteboards, Brahler ICS, Tentnology; distributor of Garmin; HP preferred partner; Adobe and Corel partner; manufacturer of fiscal cash registers Bravo; developer of ERP ULTIMA® software - Distribution, Standard, Professional and Enterprise.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 102
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lightfleet-corporation.jpeg
Lightfleet Corporation
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/duna-computers.jpeg
Duna
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Lightfleet Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Duna
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lightfleet Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Duna in 2025.

Incident History — Lightfleet Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lightfleet Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Duna (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Duna cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lightfleet-corporation.jpeg
Lightfleet Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/duna-computers.jpeg
Duna
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Duna company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lightfleet Corporation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Duna company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Lightfleet Corporation company.

In the current year, Duna company and Lightfleet Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Duna company nor Lightfleet Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Duna company nor Lightfleet Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Duna company nor Lightfleet Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation company nor Duna company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Duna company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Lightfleet Corporation company.

Duna company employs more people globally than Lightfleet Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Computer Hardware.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lightfleet Corporation nor Duna holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H