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

Comparison Overview

Medidata South Korea Medidata South Korea
VS
CiscoCisco
Medidata South Korea

Medidata South Korea

152 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, undefined, undefined, KR

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.medidata.com/kr/
749/1000Moderate

Medidata is leading the digital transformation of life sciences, creating hope for millions of patients. Medidata helps generate the evidence and insights to help pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device and diagnostics companies, and academic researchers accelerate valu...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:27
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cisco

Cisco

Tasman Way, San Jose, 95134, US

Last Update: 02/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.cisco.com
194/1000Critical

Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its custo...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:95,930
Subsidiaries:29
12-month incidents
25
Known data breaches
9
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Medidata South Korea

Medidata South Korea

-
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
Cisco

Cisco

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Medidata South Korea in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Cisco has 2236.45% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Medidata South Korea (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Medidata South Korea cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Cisco 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...
Medidata South Korea

Medidata South Korea

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cisco

Cisco

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CIS1783002468
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CIS1781792750
🔒 Incident : Breach
CISTHE1780591442

FAQ

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