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

Comparison Overview

Machine Learning ReplyMachine Learning Reply
VS
EPAM SystemsEPAM Systems
Machine Learning Reply

Machine Learning Reply

Via Nizza, 250, Turin, 10126, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile

Machine Learning Reply is specialized in providing AI services and solutions to guide its customers towards digitalisation, helping them to become more competitive and data driven as a result of Smart Analytics, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. The consult...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:59
Subsidiaries:121
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

41 University Drive Suite 202, Newtown, PA, US, 18940

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.epam.com
775/1000Fair

Since 1993, EPAM Systems, Inc. (NYSE: EPAM) has used its software engineering expertise to become a leading global provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading business and experience consulting partner for global enterpri...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:63,943
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Machine Learning Reply

Machine Learning Reply

-
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
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Machine Learning Reply in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EPAM Systems in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Machine Learning Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Machine Learning Reply 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 - EPAM Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EPAM Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Machine Learning Reply

Machine Learning Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86098
SUMMARY

ntop nDPI versions before 6.0 contain a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the ndpi_json_string_escape function that writes beyond caller-supplied buffer boundaries. Attackers can trigger the overflow by supplying crafted network packet data including TLS SNI, HTTP headers, or DNS names that reach the vulnerable function, causing heap corruption.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
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:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86097
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a null pointer dereference vulnerability in param_set_default_file() and param_set_backup_file() functions that allows attackers to crash the autopilot process. Attackers can invoke 'param select' or 'param select-backup' commands with no path argument from any PX4 shell to trigger the crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86096
SUMMARY

PX4 Autopilot through 1.17.0 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in TemperatureCalibration::start() due to a race condition between task spawning and object deletion. Attackers can trigger the calibration process via shell commands to write to freed heap memory, corrupting unrelated objects or allocator metadata and destabilizing heap operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86095
SUMMARY

Unidata netcdf-c through 4.10.1 contains an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in NC4_HDF5_inq_attname() that copies HDF5 attribute names into a fixed 256-byte buffer without length validation. Attackers can craft HDF5 files with oversized attribute names to overflow the destination buffer, causing memory corruption and crashes when applications enumerate attribute names.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48019
SUMMARY

Laravel is a web application framework. Prior to versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0, a CRLF injection vulnerability in Laravel's email validation, in combination with how Symfony Mailer and Symfony Mime handle certain character sequences, may allow an unauthenticated attacker to interfere with outbound email processing in applications that send mail to user-supplied addresses. This issue has been patched in versions 12.60.0 and 13.10.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-04
UPDATED
Date2026-09-04
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2