Comparison Overview

MasterStream ERP

VS

ByteDance

MasterStream ERP

Corona, CA 92883, US, Corona, CA 92883, US
Last Update: 2025-03-15 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

MasterStreamERPโ„ข provides configure price quote (CPQ) solutions that deliver end-to-end automation of telecom business processes. A focus on simplicity and ease of use has made MasterStream the first choice in hosted telecom CPQ software solutions, trusted by the industry to provide over 30 million quotes per month. MasterStream provides solutions that offer support for everything, including pre-sales contact management, real-time instant quoting, proposal and order document automation, and post-sale back-office operations such as order tracking, commission management, and more. Reduce your labor costs while integrating of all your sales and back-office operations. The result is increased sales and industry-leading support and responsiveness. Whether you are a telecom provider, reseller, VAR, or agent/master agent, our MasterStreamERPโ„ข hosted solutions deliver the complete automation you need to survive and win in the complex and fast-paced telecom industry. Get the competitive advantage that your telecommunications company needs in a total automation solution with MasterStream!

NAICS: 511
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 0
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

ByteDance

undefined, China, China, 100098, CN
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)

Strong

ByteDance is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services - over 2.5bn people interact with ByteDance products including TikTok. Creation is the core of ByteDance's purpose. Our products are built to help imaginations thrive. This is doubly true of the teams that make our innovations possible. Together, we inspire creativity and enrich life - a mission we aim towards achieving every day. At ByteDance, we create together and grow together. That's how we drive impact - for ourselves, our company, and the users we serve. We are committed to building a safe, healthy and positive online environment for all our users. We have over 110,000 employees based in more than 30 countries globally. Join us.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 43,669
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
MasterStream ERP
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bytedance.jpeg
ByteDance
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
MasterStream ERP
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ByteDance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MasterStream ERP in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

ByteDance has 117.39% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” MasterStream ERP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MasterStream ERP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” ByteDance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ByteDance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
MasterStream ERP
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bytedance.jpeg
ByteDance
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized access, possibly through internal systems or third-party database
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Legal Compliance
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Regulatory Compliance
Blog: Blog

FAQ

MasterStream ERP company company demonstrates a stronger AI risk posture compared to ByteDance company company, reflecting its advanced AI governance and monitoring frameworks.

ByteDance company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas MasterStream ERP company has not reported any.

In the current year, ByteDance company has reported more cyber incidents than MasterStream ERP company.

Neither ByteDance company nor MasterStream ERP company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

ByteDance company has disclosed at least one data breach, while MasterStream ERP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

ByteDance company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while MasterStream ERP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

ByteDance company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while MasterStream ERP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

ByteDance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to MasterStream ERP company.

ByteDance company employs more people globally than MasterStream ERP company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tricked a user into giving up their Geode session credentials to submit malicious commands on the target system on behalf of the authenticated user. This issue affects Apache Geode: versions 1.10 through 1.15.1 Users are recommended to upgrade to version 1.15.2, which fixes the issue.

Description

The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1.12 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level permissions and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. This only affects multi-site installations and installations where unfiltered_html has been disabled.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'theme_editor_theme' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Local access is required to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.0.0.1 is able to mitigate this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The vendor was contacted beforehand and was able to provide a patch very early.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.8
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: mscc: ocelot: Fix use-after-free caused by cyclic delayed work The origin code calls cancel_delayed_work() in ocelot_stats_deinit() to cancel the cyclic delayed work item ocelot->stats_work. However, cancel_delayed_work() may fail to cancel the work item if it is already executing. While destroy_workqueue() does wait for all pending work items in the work queue to complete before destroying the work queue, it cannot prevent the delayed work item from being rescheduled within the ocelot_check_stats_work() function. This limitation exists because the delayed work item is only enqueued into the work queue after its timer expires. Before the timer expiration, destroy_workqueue() has no visibility of this pending work item. Once the work queue appears empty, destroy_workqueue() proceeds with destruction. When the timer eventually expires, the delayed work item gets queued again, leading to the following warning: workqueue: cannot queue ocelot_check_stats_work on wq ocelot-switch-stats WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at kernel/workqueue.c:2255 __queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RIP: 0010:__queue_work+0x875/0xaf0 ... RSP: 0018:ffff88806d108b10 EFLAGS: 00010086 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000101 RCX: 0000000000000027 RDX: 0000000000000027 RSI: 0000000000000004 RDI: ffff88806d123e88 RBP: ffffffff813c3170 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffffed100da247d2 R10: ffffed100da247d1 R11: ffff88806d123e8b R12: ffff88800c00f000 R13: ffff88800d7285c0 R14: ffff88806d0a5580 R15: ffff88800d7285a0 FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8880e5725000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00007fe18e45ea10 CR3: 0000000005e6c000 CR4: 00000000000006f0 Call Trace: <IRQ> ? kasan_report+0xc6/0xf0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 call_timer_fn+0x25/0x1c0 __run_timer_base.part.0+0x3be/0x8c0 ? __pfx_delayed_work_timer_fn+0x10/0x10 ? rcu_sched_clock_irq+0xb06/0x27d0 ? __pfx___run_timer_base.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? try_to_wake_up+0xb15/0x1960 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x603/0x7e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 ? sched_balance_trigger+0x1c0/0x9f0 ? sched_tick+0x221/0x5a0 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x80/0xe0 ? __pfx__raw_spin_lock_irq+0x10/0x10 ? tick_nohz_handler+0x339/0x440 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote_up+0x10/0x10 __walk_groups.isra.0+0x42/0x150 tmigr_handle_remote+0x1f4/0x2e0 ? __pfx_tmigr_handle_remote+0x10/0x10 ? ktime_get+0x60/0x140 ? lapic_next_event+0x11/0x20 ? clockevents_program_event+0x1d4/0x2a0 ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x322/0x780 handle_softirqs+0x16a/0x550 irq_exit_rcu+0xaf/0xe0 sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x80 </IRQ> ... The following diagram reveals the cause of the above warning: CPU 0 (remove) | CPU 1 (delayed work callback) mscc_ocelot_remove() | ocelot_deinit() | ocelot_check_stats_work() ocelot_stats_deinit() | cancel_delayed_work()| ... | queue_delayed_work() destroy_workqueue() | (wait a time) | __queue_work() //UAF The above scenario actually constitutes a UAF vulnerability. The ocelot_stats_deinit() is only invoked when initialization failure or resource destruction, so we must ensure that any delayed work items cannot be rescheduled. Replace cancel_delayed_work() with disable_delayed_work_sync() to guarantee proper cancellation of the delayed work item and ensure completion of any currently executing work before the workqueue is deallocated. A deadlock concern was considered: ocelot_stats_deinit() is called in a process context and is not holding any locks that the delayed work item might also need. Therefore, the use of the _sync() variant is safe here. This bug was identified through static analysis. To reproduce the issue and validate the fix, I simulated ocelot-swit ---truncated---