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

Comparison Overview

OneTrust Risk & Security ManagementOneTrust Risk & Security Management
VS
MetaMeta
OneTrust Risk & Security Management

OneTrust Risk & Security Management

N/A

Last Update: 20/01/2026

View Profile

Navigate the evolving landscape of third-party risk, tech compliance, and security with OneTrust. This page is where you’ll find expert insights, strategic guidance, and practical resources to strengthen resilience and stay one step ahead.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Meta

Meta

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, 94025, US

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.metacareers.com/
639/1000Poor

Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Our technologies help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. When Facebook launched in 2004, it changed the way people connect. Apps like Messenger, In...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:164,515
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OneTrust Risk & Security Management

OneTrust Risk & Security Management

-
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
Meta

Meta

-
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 OneTrust Risk & Security Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Meta has 676.7% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - OneTrust Risk & Security Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OneTrust Risk & Security Management 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 - Meta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Meta 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...
OneTrust Risk & Security Management

OneTrust Risk & Security Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Meta

Meta

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOMICTREMET1788168069
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MET1780302304
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8