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

Comparison Overview

Mozilla HubsMozilla Hubs
VS
YouTubeYouTube
Mozilla Hubs

Mozilla Hubs

Hubs, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

Hubs is no longer actively maintained by Mozilla. The Community Discord Server and Github Repositories are now being maintained by The Hubs Foundation: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/end-support-mozilla-hubs

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
YouTube

YouTube

901 Cherry Ave., San Bruno, 94066, US

Last Update: 23/06/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.youtube.com/jobs
748/1000Moderate

YouTube is a team-oriented, creative workplace where every single employee has a voice in the choices we make and the features we implement. We work together in small teams to design, develop, and roll out key features and products in very short time frames. Which means...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:144,383
Subsidiaries:51
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mozilla Hubs

Mozilla Hubs

-
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
YouTube

YouTube

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mozilla Hubs in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

YouTube has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Mozilla Hubs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mozilla Hubs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

YouTube 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...
Mozilla Hubs

Mozilla Hubs

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
YouTube

YouTube

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MEDZYPTELMETTIKGOOYOU1770029110
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
YOUGOO1782210666
🔒 Incident : Breach
GOOYOU1766548552

FAQ

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