Comparison Overview

Microsoft Security

VS

Ingram Micro

Microsoft Security

Seattle, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Leading source for security innovation, industry insights, and news. Stay ahead of every shift in the security landscape and discover tools to help you secure your organization.​

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: None
Subsidiaries: 50
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
10
Attack type number
5

Ingram Micro

3351 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA, US, 92612
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Ingram Micro is a leading technology company for the global information technology ecosystem. With the ability to reach nearly 90% of the global population, we play a vital role in the worldwide IT sales channel, bringing products and services from technology manufacturers and cloud providers to a highly diversified base of business-to-business technology experts. Through Ingram Micro Xvantage™, our AI-powered digital platform, we offer what we believe to be the industry’s first comprehensive business-to-consumer-like experience, integrating hardware and cloud subscriptions, personalized recommendations, instant pricing, order tracking, and billing automation. We also provide a broad range of technology services, including financing, specialized marketing, and lifecycle management, as well as technical pre- and post-sales professional support. Learn more at www.ingrammicro.com.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 28,560
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft-security.jpeg
Microsoft Security
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/ingram-micro.jpeg
Ingram Micro
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
Microsoft Security
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ingram Micro
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

Microsoft Security has 32.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Ingram Micro has 55.95% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Microsoft Security (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Microsoft Security cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Ingram Micro (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ingram Micro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft-security.jpeg
Microsoft Security
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain, Account Takeovers, Ransomware Attacks
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Infostealing Malware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Improper token validation in Azure SSO
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ingram-micro.jpeg
Ingram Micro
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial extortion (presumed)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Cloud Storage, Phishing, Ransomware, DDoS, Malicious Git Repositories
Motivation: Political, Financial Gain, Espionage, Hacktivism
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Microsoft Security company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ingram Micro company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Microsoft Security company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ingram Micro company.

In the current year, Microsoft Security company has reported more cyber incidents than Ingram Micro company.

Both Ingram Micro company and Microsoft Security company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Both Ingram Micro company and Microsoft Security company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Microsoft Security company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ingram Micro company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Microsoft Security company and Ingram Micro company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft Security company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ingram Micro company.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Microsoft Security nor Ingram Micro holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Typemill is a flat-file, Markdown-based CMS designed for informational documentation websites. A reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exists in the login error view template `login.twig` of versions 2.19.1 and below. The `username` value can be echoed back without proper contextual encoding when authentication fails. An attacker can execute script in the login page context. This issue has been fixed in version 2.19.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Description

A DOM-based Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the DomainCheckerApp class within domain/script.js of Sourcecodester Domain Availability Checker v1.0. The vulnerability occurs because the application improperly handles user-supplied data in the createResultElement method by using the unsafe innerHTML property to render domain search results.

Description

A Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in Sourcecodester Modern Image Gallery App v1.0 within the gallery/upload.php component. The application fails to properly validate uploaded file contents. Additionally, the application preserves the user-supplied file extension during the save process. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to upload arbitrary PHP code by spoofing the MIME type as an image, leading to full system compromise.

Description

A UNIX symbolic link following issue in the jailer component in Firecracker version v1.13.1 and earlier and 1.14.0 on Linux may allow a local host user with write access to the pre-created jailer directories to overwrite arbitrary host files via a symlink attack during the initialization copy at jailer startup, if the jailer is executed with root privileges. To mitigate this issue, users should upgrade to version v1.13.2 or 1.14.1 or above.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 6.0
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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
Description

An information disclosure vulnerability exists in the /srvs/membersrv/getCashiers endpoint of the Aptsys gemscms backend platform thru 2025-05-28. This unauthenticated endpoint returns a list of cashier accounts, including names, email addresses, usernames, and passwords hashed using MD5. As MD5 is a broken cryptographic function, the hashes can be easily reversed using public tools, exposing user credentials in plaintext. This allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized logins and potentially gain access to sensitive POS operations or backend functions.