Comparison Overview

Meta

VS

Cox Automotive Inc.

Meta

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA, US, 94025
Last Update: 2025-12-11
View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.metacareers.com/

Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Our technologies help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. When Facebook launched in 2004, it changed the way people connect. Apps like Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp further empowered billions around the world. Now, Meta is moving beyond 2D screens toward immersive experiences like augmented and virtual reality to help build the next evolution in social technology. To help create a safe and respectful online space, we encourage constructive conversations on this page. Please note the following: • Start with an open mind. Whether you agree or disagree, engage with empathy. • Comments violating our Community Standards will be removed or hidden. Please treat everybody with respect. • Keep it constructive. Use your interactions here to learn about and grow your understanding of others. • Our moderators are here to uphold these guidelines for the benefit of everyone, every day. • If you are seeking support for issues related to your Facebook account, please reference our Help Center (https://www.facebook.com/help) or Help Community (https://www.facebook.com/help/community). For a full listing of our jobs, visit https://www.metacareers.com

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 140,153
Subsidiaries: 21
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
4
View Profile

Cox Automotive Inc.

3003 Summit Blvd., 200, Atlanta, GA, US, 30319
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
https://www.coxautoinc.com/

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: 10,452
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/meta.jpeg
Meta
—
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
Meta
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)

Meta has 1303.51% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Automotive Inc. in 2025.

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

Meta 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/meta.jpeg
Meta
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unsafe deserialization of payloads
Motivation: Exploitation for remote code execution, potential data exfiltration, and botnet integration
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Contact Discovery Feature Abuse, Brute-Force Queries, Metadata Exploitation
Motivation: Data Harvesting, Targeted Phishing Preparation, Identity-Based Social Engineering, Fraud Enablement
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Fake Emails, Fake Websites, Spoofed URLs, AI-Generated Scam Sites
Motivation: Financial Gain, Identity Theft, Data Harvesting for Dark Web Sales
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-automotive-inc-.jpeg
Cox Automotive Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Meta company has reported more cyber incidents than Cox Automotive Inc. company.

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

Meta company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Cox Automotive Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Meta company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Cox Automotive Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Meta company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Cox Automotive Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Meta nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Meta nor Cox Automotive Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References