Comparison Overview

OnlyFans

VS

Universal Music Group

OnlyFans

London, GB
Last Update: 2025-12-23
Between 650 and 699

OnlyFans empowers creators to own their full potential. OnlyFans is a place for creators from all genres and is committed to building the most inclusive and safest social media platform in the world. OnlyFans is a space for creators to express themselves freely, monetize content, and develop authentic connections with their fans. We continue to put power into the hands of creators by developing unparalleled opportunities for our community.

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 5,158
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Universal Music Group

2220 Colorado Avenue, None, Santa Monica, California, US, 90401
Last Update: 2025-12-25

Universal Music Group (UMG) is the world leader in music-based entertainment, with a broad array of businesses engaged in recorded music, music publishing, merchandising and audiovisual content in more than 60 countries. Featuring the most comprehensive catalog of recordings and songs across every musical genre, UMG identifies and develops artists and produces and distributes the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful music in the world. Committed to artistry, innovation and entrepreneurship, UMG fosters the development of services, platforms and business models in order to broaden artistic and commercial opportunities for our artists and create new experiences for fans. Universal Music Group's labels include A&M Records, Astralwerks, Blue Note Records, Capitol Christian Music Group, Capitol Records, Capitol Records Nashville, Caroline, Decca, Def Jam Recordings, Deutsche Grammophon, Disa, Emarcy, EMI Records Nashville, Fonovisa, Geffen Records, Harvest, Interscope Records, Island Records, Machete Music, MCA Nashville, Mercury Nashville, Mercury Records, Motown Records, Polydor Records, Republic Records, Universal Music Latino, Verve Label Group, Virgin Records, Virgin EMI Records, as well as a multitude of record labels owned or distributed by its record company subsidiaries around the world. UMG's catalog is marketed through two distinct divisions, Universal Music Enterprises (in the U.S.) and Universal Strategic Marketing (outside the U.S.). UMG also includes Universal Music Publishing Group, one of the industry's premier music publishing operations worldwide and Bravado, the leading provider of consumer, lifestyle and branding services to recording artists and entertainment brands around the world. Universal Music Group is a Vivendi company. Find out more at: http://www.universalmusic.com. View our current career opportunities at: http://www.umusiccareers.com

NAICS: 71
NAICS Definition: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Employees: 18,381
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/onlyfans.jpeg
OnlyFans
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universalmusicgroup.jpeg
Universal Music Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
OnlyFans
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Universal Music Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

OnlyFans has 5.26% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Universal Music Group in 2025.

Incident History — OnlyFans (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OnlyFans cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Universal Music Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Universal Music Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/onlyfans.jpeg
OnlyFans
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party analytics vendor (supply chain attack)
Motivation: Extortion, data monetization on dark web
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universalmusicgroup.jpeg
Universal Music Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2024
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Universal Music Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to OnlyFans company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

OnlyFans and Universal Music Group have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, OnlyFans company has reported more cyber incidents than Universal Music Group company.

Neither Universal Music Group company nor OnlyFans company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Universal Music Group company and OnlyFans company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Neither Universal Music Group company nor OnlyFans company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither OnlyFans company nor Universal Music Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Universal Music Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to OnlyFans company.

Universal Music Group company employs more people globally than OnlyFans company, reflecting its scale as a Entertainment Providers.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither OnlyFans nor Universal Music Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to version 2.0.0, in self-hosted n8n instances where the Code node runs in legacy (non-task-runner) JavaScript execution mode, authenticated users with workflow editing access can invoke internal helper functions from within the Code node. This allows a workflow editor to perform actions on the n8n host with the same privileges as the n8n process, including: reading files from the host filesystem (subject to any file-access restrictions configured on the instance and OS/container permissions), and writing files to the host filesystem (subject to the same restrictions). This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0. Workarounds for this issue involve limiting file operations by setting N8N_RESTRICT_FILE_ACCESS_TO to a dedicated directory (e.g., ~/.n8n-files) and ensure it contains no sensitive data, keeping N8N_BLOCK_FILE_ACCESS_TO_N8N_FILES=true (default) to block access to .n8n and user-defined config files, and disabling high-risk nodes (including the Code node) using NODES_EXCLUDE if workflow editors are not fully trusted.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. From version 1.0.0 to before 2.0.0, a sandbox bypass vulnerability exists in the Python Code Node that uses Pyodide. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary commands on the host system running n8n, using the same privileges as the n8n process. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.0. Workarounds for this issue involve disabling the Code Node by setting the environment variable NODES_EXCLUDE: "[\"n8n-nodes-base.code\"]", disabling Python support in the Code node by setting the environment variable N8N_PYTHON_ENABLED=false, which was introduced in n8n version 1.104.0, and configuring n8n to use the task runner based Python sandbox via the N8N_RUNNERS_ENABLED and N8N_NATIVE_PYTHON_RUNNER environment variables.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

LMDeploy is a toolkit for compressing, deploying, and serving LLMs. Prior to version 0.11.1, an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists in lmdeploy where torch.load() is called without the weights_only=True parameter when loading model checkpoint files. This allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the victim's machine when they load a malicious .bin or .pt model file. This issue has been patched in version 0.11.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

n8n is an open source workflow automation platform. Prior to version 1.114.0, a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability may occur in n8n when using the “Respond to Webhook” node. When this node responds with HTML content containing executable scripts, the payload may execute directly in the top-level window, rather than within the expected sandbox introduced in version 1.103.0. This behavior can enable a malicious actor with workflow creation permissions to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the n8n editor interface. This issue has been patched in version 1.114.0. Workarounds for this issue involve restricting workflow creation and modification privileges to trusted users only, avoiding use of untrusted HTML responses in the “Respond to Webhook” node, and using an external reverse proxy or HTML sanitizer to filter responses that include executable scripts.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Yealink T21P_E2 Phone 52.84.0.15 is vulnerable to Directory Traversal. A remote normal privileged attacker can read arbitrary files via a crafted request result read function of the diagnostic component.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N