Comparison Overview
OpenText Partner

OpenText Partner
275 Frank Tompa Dr, Waterloo, N2L, CA
Last Update: 08/01/2026
OpenText is a world leader in Information Management, helping companies securely capture, govern and exchange information on a global scale. At OpenText, we believe in the power of collaboration. Our Partners Program is designed to foster strategic alliances that driv...

Booking.com
Oosterdokskade 163, Amsterdam, 1011 DL, NL
Last Update: 20/04/2026
A career at Booking.com is all about the journey, helping you explore new challenges in a place where you can be your best self. With plenty of exciting twists, turns and opportunities along the way. We’ve always been pioneers, on a mission to shape the future of trav...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

OpenText Partner







Booking.com






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for OpenText Partner in 2026.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Booking.com has 277.36% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - OpenText Partner (X = Date, Y = Severity)
OpenText Partner cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Booking.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Booking.com cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

OpenText Partner

Booking.com
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.