Comparison Overview

LinkedIn

VS

Zoho

LinkedIn

1000 W Maude, None, Sunnyvale, CA, US, 94085
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Founded in 2003, LinkedIn connects the world's professionals to make them more productive and successful. With more than 1 billion members worldwide, including executives from every Fortune 500 company, LinkedIn is the world's largest professional network. The company has a diversified business model with revenue coming from Talent Solutions, Marketing Solutions, Sales Solutions and Premium Subscriptions products. Headquartered in Silicon Valley, LinkedIn has offices across the globe..

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 23,853
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Zoho

Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd, Estancia IT Park, Plot No. 140 & 151,, Chennai, 603202, IN
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Zoho offers beautifully smart software to help you grow your business. With over 100 million users worldwide, Zoho's 55+ products aid your sales and marketing, support and collaboration, finance, and recruitment needs—letting you focus only on your business. Zoho respects user privacy and does not have an ad-revenue model in any part of its business, including its free products. Zoho Corporation is privately held and profitable, with its headquarters in Chennai, India, and offices across the globe.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 29,539
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/linkedin.jpeg
LinkedIn
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/zoho.jpeg
Zoho
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
LinkedIn
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Zoho
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LinkedIn in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Zoho has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

LinkedIn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Zoho cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/linkedin.jpeg
LinkedIn
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Network Intrusion
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2012
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zoho.jpeg
Zoho
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Authentication Bypass
Motivation: Account Takeover, Access Sensitive Data
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

LinkedIn company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Zoho company.

In the current year, Zoho company has reported more cyber incidents than LinkedIn company.

Neither Zoho company nor LinkedIn company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

LinkedIn company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Zoho company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Zoho company nor LinkedIn company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Zoho company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while LinkedIn company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

LinkedIn company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Zoho company.

Zoho company employs more people globally than LinkedIn company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LinkedIn nor Zoho 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