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

Comparison Overview

OpenText Observability and Service ManagementOpenText Observability and Service Management
VS
Red HatRed Hat
OpenText Observability and Service Management

OpenText Observability and Service Management

Waterloo, CA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

For years, IT Operations has been reactive, focused on monitoring or on ticketing systems to maintain performance and manage service requests. This approach creates order for IT but drives up support costs and frustrates users. At OpenText, we believe the best ticket is...

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

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, US, 27601

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.redhat.com
695/1000Weak

Red Hat is the world’s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions, using a community-powered approach to deliver high-performing Linux, hybrid cloud, edge, and Kubernetes technologies. We hire creative, passionate people who are ready to contribute their idea...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:19,335
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OpenText Observability and Service Management

OpenText Observability and Service 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
Red Hat

Red Hat

-
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 OpenText Observability and Service Management in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Hat in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OpenText Observability and Service Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OpenText Observability and Service 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 - Red Hat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat 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...
OpenText Observability and Service Management

OpenText Observability and Service Management

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Red Hat

Red Hat

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RED4732847100725
🔒 Incident : Breach
RED4292342100825
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
RED1694016100125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8