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

Comparison Overview

MoonlockMoonlock
VS
Palo Alto NetworksPalo Alto Networks
Moonlock

Moonlock

N/A

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://moonlock.com/
731/1000Moderate

We are Moonlock – the cybersecurity wing of MacPaw, aspiring to make cybersecurity accessible to everyone. Using MacPaw’s 15-year experience in macOS development, Moonlock is bringing together a dedicated team of researchers and engineers to pack complex security tech...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, 95054, US

Last Update: 04/10/2026

View Profile
585/1000Very Poor

Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:22,839
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
14
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Moonlock

Moonlock

-
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
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

-
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 Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Moonlock has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Palo Alto Networks has 1286.14% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Moonlock cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Palo Alto Networks 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...
Moonlock

Moonlock

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MOO1770130358
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
FORCHEMIKPALMICODIADOITR1789359970
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NUCPALZYXWESSEC1790066961
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CHEFORPALCIT1784881580

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8