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

Comparison Overview

MicroWorld Technologies IncMicroWorld Technologies Inc
VS
AtlassianAtlassian
MicroWorld Technologies Inc

MicroWorld Technologies Inc

Andheri (E), Mumbai, 400 093, IN

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.escanav.com/
735/1000Moderate

MicroWorld Technologies is an advanced security solution provider specializing in AntiVirus, AntiSpam, Content Security and Network Intrusion Prevention solutions. Incorporated in New Jersey, USA, MicroWorld has offices in India, Germany, Malaysia, South Africa and M...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:190
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Atlassian

Atlassian

Level 6/341 George St, Sydney, 2000, AU

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://atlassian.com/
759/1000Fair

Atlassian powers the collaboration that helps teams accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone. From space missions and motor racing to bugs in code and IT requests, no task is too large or too small with the right team, the right tools, and the right practice...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:16,931
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MicroWorld Technologies Inc

MicroWorld Technologies Inc

-
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
Atlassian

Atlassian

-
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)

MicroWorld Technologies Inc has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Atlassian has 288.35% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - MicroWorld Technologies Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MicroWorld Technologies Inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Atlassian 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...
MicroWorld Technologies Inc

MicroWorld Technologies Inc

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MICMIC1769460960
Atlassian

Atlassian

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ATL1786359965
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ATL1776868681
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ATL1774866325

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8