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

Comparison Overview

Obot AIObot AI
VS
Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
Obot AI

Obot AI

Cupertino, US

Last Update: 27/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.obot.ai
695/1000Weak

MCPs are becoming the backbone of AI integration. Without a control layer, organizations risk shadow infrastructure, data leaks, and lost productivity. Obot's MCP Gateway helps enterprises accelerate adoption and stay in control - before the chaos spreads.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:18
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
475/1000Critical

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entiti...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,782
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Obot AI

Obot AI

-
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
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

-
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)

Obot AI has 6.54% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Pitney Bowes has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Obot AI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Obot AI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pitney Bowes 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...
Obot AI

Obot AI

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OBOVLLFAS1779892255
🔒 Incident : Breach
OBO1778495141
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIT1777335822
🔒 Incident : Breach
CARHOLPRI1776630318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-57995
SUMMARY

phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
2.8
CVE-2026-56777
SUMMARY

n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-56700
SUMMARY

Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
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-2026-56415
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56413
SUMMARY

Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-30
UPDATED
Date2026-06-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9