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

Comparison Overview

Microsoft FabricMicrosoft Fabric
VS
LexisNexis Risk SolutionsLexisNexis Risk Solutions
Microsoft Fabric

Microsoft Fabric

Redmond, WA, US

Last Update: 16/03/2026

View Profile
797/1000Fair

Accelerate your data potential with Microsoft Fabric—an end-to-end analytics platform that unifies the data and analytics organizations need for the AI era.

NAICS:518
NAICS Definition:Data Processing, Hosting and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
LexisNexis Risk Solutions

LexisNexis Risk Solutions

1000 Alderman Drive, Alpharetta, GA, US, 30005

Last Update: 24/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://risk.lexisnexis.com
686/1000Weak

At LexisNexis Risk Solutions®, we believe in using data for good to solve problems and make a positive impact on people, industry and society. We deliver enhanced value to our customers by leveraging the power of insight through data, advanced analytics and innovative t...

NAICS:518
NAICS Definition:Data Processing, Hosting and Related Services
Employees:10,043
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Microsoft Fabric

Microsoft Fabric

-
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
LexisNexis Risk Solutions

LexisNexis Risk Solutions

-
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 Data Infrastructure and Analytics Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Microsoft Fabric in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Data Infrastructure and Analytics Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for LexisNexis Risk Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Microsoft Fabric (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Microsoft Fabric cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - LexisNexis Risk Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LexisNexis Risk Solutions 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...
Microsoft Fabric

Microsoft Fabric

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
LexisNexis Risk Solutions

LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1007052925
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX230072825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA