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

Comparison Overview

NEC Neva Communications SystemsNEC Neva Communications Systems
VS
KyndrylKyndryl
NEC Neva Communications Systems

NEC Neva Communications Systems

Шоссе Революции, 102, корпус 2, Санкт-Петербург, undefined, 195279, RU

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://ru.nec.com/
751/1000Fair

АО «NEC Нева Коммуникационные Системы»-дочерняя компания Японской Корпорации NEC в России, лидер в области разработки телекоммуникационных решений для мобильных, фиксированных сетей связи и мультимедийных сетей нового поколения. Деятельность NEC в России началась в ко...

NAICS:541
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:27
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

New York City, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://kyndryl.com
651/1000Weak

We have the world’s best talent that design, run, and manage the most advanced and reliable technology infrastructure each day. Together, we think holistically about the health of these vital technology ecosystems. We are a focused, independent company that builds on o...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:61,535
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NEC Neva Communications Systems

NEC Neva Communications Systems

-
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
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NEC Neva Communications Systems in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Kyndryl has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - NEC Neva Communications Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NEC Neva Communications Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Kyndryl 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...
NEC Neva Communications Systems

NEC Neva Communications Systems

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Kyndryl

Kyndryl

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
IHGHCLGAPWYNMCDVODKYNMIC1786975327

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86544
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability where mutating code actions are incorrectly classified as read-only operations. Attackers with read-restricted sessions can exploit code.replace to modify permission configurations and escalate privileges on subsequent calls.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86543
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 serve the management API without authentication on all network interfaces by default, with no password required on fresh installations. Attackers can access the unauthenticated /api/tunnel/start endpoint to provision a public tunnel and republish the API at a publicly accessible address.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86542
SUMMARY

knowns before 0.30.0 fails to validate import names in the import routes, allowing unauthenticated attackers to write files outside the imports directory. Attackers can supply traversal sequences in the name parameter to escape the imports directory and overwrite arbitrary files writable by the server process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86541
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain a path traversal vulnerability in the handleCodeReplace() function that allows attackers to overwrite arbitrary files outside the project root. Attackers can supply absolute paths or relative paths containing directory traversal sequences to write malicious content to sensitive files like shell startup scripts or SSH configuration files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86540
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 fail to validate the settings.lsp.languages binary field in project configuration files, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary binaries by crafting a malicious .knowns/config.json file. When a repository with a crafted configuration is opened, the unvalidated binary path is executed twice under the user's account without any verification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8