Comparison Overview

Meituan

VS

Cox Automotive Inc.

Meituan

Wangjing International R&D Park, No.6 Wangjing East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, CN, 100102
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Adhering to the ‘Retail + Technology’ strategy, Meituan commits to its mission that 'We help people eat better, live better'. Since its establishment in March 2010, Meituan has advanced the digital upgrading of services and goods retail on both supply and demand sides. Together with our partners we provide quality services for consumers. On 20 September, 2018, Meituan was listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. Meituan has always put customers first, and continuously increased its R&D investment in new technologies. Meituan will join hands with all partners to fulfill our social responsibility and create more values for the society.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 40,304
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Cox Automotive Inc.

3003 Summit Blvd., Atlanta, 30319, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Cox Automotive is the world’s largest automotive services and technology provider. Fueled by the largest breadth of first-party data fed by 2.3 billion online interactions a year, Cox Automotive tailors leading solutions for car shoppers, auto manufacturers, dealers, lenders and fleets. The company has 29,000+ employees on five continents and a portfolio of industry-leading brands that include Autotrader®, Kelley Blue Book®, Manheim®, vAuto®, Dealertrack®, NextGear Capital™, CentralDispatch® and FleetNet America®. Cox Automotive is a subsidiary of Cox Enterprises Inc., a privately-owned, Atlanta-based company with $22 billion in annual revenue.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,531
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/meituan.jpeg
Meituan
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/cox-automotive-inc-.jpeg
Cox Automotive Inc.
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
Meituan
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cox Automotive Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Meituan in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Automotive Inc. in 2026.

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

Meituan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cox Automotive Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Automotive Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/meituan.jpeg
Meituan
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2018
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-automotive-inc-.jpeg
Cox Automotive Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Meituan company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cox Automotive Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Meituan company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Cox Automotive Inc. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cox Automotive Inc. company and Meituan company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. company nor Meituan company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. company nor Meituan company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Cox Automotive Inc. company nor Meituan company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Meituan company nor Cox Automotive Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Meituan company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cox Automotive Inc. company.

Meituan company employs more people globally than Cox Automotive Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Meituan nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N