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

Comparison Overview

LiteLLMLiteLLM
VS
OpenTextOpenText
LiteLLM

LiteLLM

1730 Jones St, San Francisco, California, US, 94109

Last Update: 09/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.litellm.ai/
312/1000Critical

One governed platform for AI access, cost management, and guardrails across every model, agent, and MCP in your organization. LiteLLM is the foundation teams worldwide rely on to manage and scale their entire AI program. Backed by Y Combinator with 40k+ GitHub stars.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:7
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
9
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3
OpenText

OpenText

275 Frank Tompa Drive, Waterloo, N2L 0A1, CA

Last Update: 24/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.opentext.com
679/1000Weak

OpenText is a leading Cloud and AI company that provides organizations around the world with a comprehensive suite of Business AI, Business Clouds, and Business Technology. We help organizations grow, innovate, become more efficient and effective, and do so in a trusted...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:22,990
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LiteLLM

LiteLLM

-
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
OpenText

OpenText

-
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)

LiteLLM has 741.12% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OpenText in 2026.

Incidents

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

LiteLLM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

OpenText 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...
LiteLLM

LiteLLM

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIT1781000708
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
LIT1777472744
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
OpenText

OpenText

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OPE0062100110625
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OPEOPEBITGOO1782318372

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2