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

Comparison Overview

Mojo HomesMojo Homes
VS
Keller Williams Realty, LLCKeller Williams Realty, LLC
Mojo Homes

Mojo Homes

62 Norwest Boulevard, Baulkham Hills , NSW, 2153, AU

Last Update: 08/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mojohomes.com.au/
753/1000Fair

We are NSW's most exciting and colourful builder. We are a breath of fresh air in the home building market, and we are here to change the status quo with a stunning range of new home designs. Launched in December 2014 we have made a statement throughout the Sydney, Sou...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:37
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Suite 400, Austin, TX, US, 78746

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://headquarters.kw.com/
799/1000Fair

Austin, Texas-based Keller Williams, the world’s largest real estate franchise by agent count, has more than 1,100 offices and 176,000 agents. The franchise is also No. 1 in units and sales volume in the United States. Since 1983, the company has cultivated an agent-c...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:102,888
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mojo Homes

Mojo Homes

-
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
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mojo Homes in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Keller Williams Realty, LLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mojo Homes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mojo Homes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Keller Williams Realty, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Keller Williams Realty, LLC 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...
Mojo Homes

Mojo Homes

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Keller Williams Realty, LLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
KEL020091825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9