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

Comparison Overview

Ocuco LimitedOcuco Limited
VS
PayPalPayPal
Ocuco Limited

Ocuco Limited

The Nexus Building, Blanchardstown, D15 N5DX, IE

Last Update: 24/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.ocuco.com
393/1000Critical

Ocuco is the largest optical retail software company in the world. Over 7,500 sites in 77 countries use Ocuco’s software and services. The company has over 200 staff based in the US, Canada, Ireland, England, Wales, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlan...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:312
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
PayPal

PayPal

2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA, US, 95131

Last Update: 26/06/2026

View Profile
548/1000Critical

We're championing possibilities for all by making money fast, easy, and more enjoyable. Our hope is to unlock opportunities for people in their everyday lives and empower the millions of people and businesses around the world who trust, rely, and use PayPal every day. ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:36,670
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ocuco Limited

Ocuco Limited

-
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
PayPal

PayPal

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Ocuco Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

PayPal has 466.04% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Ocuco Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ocuco Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

PayPal 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...
Ocuco Limited

Ocuco Limited

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CYBSYNCOMASCDAVOCU1777037189
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
OCU642061725
PayPal

PayPal

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NORPAYSHOAPPMCA1782469522
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
LIVPAY1773735888
🔒 Incident : Breach
PAY1771967012

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8