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

Comparison Overview

Outlook Email Signature | by XinkOutlook Email Signature | by Xink
VS
HCLTechHCLTech
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Christians Brygge 28, Copenhagen V, 1559, DK

Last Update: 14/05/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

In 2013, we revolutionized email signature management by launching our cloud-based portal on Microsoft Azure. Before this, IT departments were burdened with on-premises administration. Our intuitive, browser-based platform with role-based access empowers marketing and...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
HCLTech

HCLTech

Noida, Uttar Pradesh, IN, 201301

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.hcltech.com
801/1000Good

HCLTech is a global technology company, home to more than 223,000 people across 60 countries, delivering industry-leading capabilities centered around AI, digital, engineering, cloud and software, powered by a broad portfolio of technology services and products. We work...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:257,190
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

-
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
HCLTech

HCLTech

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Outlook Email Signature | by Xink in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

HCLTech has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Outlook Email Signature | by Xink (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

HCLTech 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...
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
HCLTech

HCLTech

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
IHGHCLGAPWYNMCDVODKYNMIC1786975327

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86304
SUMMARY

MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor. parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries. An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86232
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /pages/sup_del.php?type=supplier. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86231
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2026-86228
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.3. This vulnerability affects the function exportXls of the file jeecg-boot/jeecg-boot-module/jeecg-boot-module-airag/src/main/java/org/jeecg/modules/airag/llm/controller/AiragModelController.java. Such manipulation of the argument credential leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.5 is able to resolve this issue. The name of the patch is a2be896f753936956ee6863b632b8e5a0231345c. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.8
CVE-2026-86227
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in valkey-io valkey up to 9.0.5/9.1.1. This affects the function kvstoreGetHashtable of the file src/kvstore.c. This manipulation of the argument didx causes out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 4691888e7fab3df128f0bde5750c9fde2ae552fa. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. Exploitation requires cluster mode plus attacker-controlled dump.rdb at startup (data-dir write access, replication feed, or a stored crafted RDB) - an attacker-position DoS at boot, not network pre-auth. The issue report was closed stating it "is worth fixing for the sake of memory safety… but I don't think it meets our bar for a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.6