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

Comparison Overview

Overwolf for DevelopersOverwolf for Developers
VS
Thomson ReutersThomson Reuters
Overwolf for Developers

Overwolf for Developers

530 7th Ave, New York, 10018, US

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile

Overwolf is the comprehensive developer platform and SDK built for creators who want to scale their gaming utilities into thriving businesses. We provide the production-ready infrastructure, real-time game event APIs, and compliant monetization rails needed to build, di...

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

Thomson Reuters

19 Duncan Street , Toronto, M5H 3G6, CA

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://tr.com
719/1000Moderate

Thomson Reuters (TSX/NDAQ: TRI) informs the way forward by bringing together the trusted content and technology that people and organizations need to make the right decisions. We serve professionals across legal, tax, accounting, compliance, government, and media. Our p...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:36,808
Subsidiaries:29
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Overwolf for Developers

Overwolf for Developers

-
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
Thomson Reuters

Thomson Reuters

-
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 Overwolf for Developers in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Thomson Reuters has 288.35% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Overwolf for Developers (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Overwolf for Developers 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 - Thomson Reuters (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thomson Reuters 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...
Overwolf for Developers

Overwolf for Developers

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Thomson Reuters

Thomson Reuters

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THO1788445854
🔒 Incident : Breach
STATHO1788405811
🔒 Incident : Breach
ALA1788460208

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86544
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain an authorization bypass vulnerability where mutating code actions are incorrectly classified as read-only operations. Attackers with read-restricted sessions can exploit code.replace to modify permission configurations and escalate privileges on subsequent calls.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86543
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 serve the management API without authentication on all network interfaces by default, with no password required on fresh installations. Attackers can access the unauthenticated /api/tunnel/start endpoint to provision a public tunnel and republish the API at a publicly accessible address.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86542
SUMMARY

knowns before 0.30.0 fails to validate import names in the import routes, allowing unauthenticated attackers to write files outside the imports directory. Attackers can supply traversal sequences in the name parameter to escape the imports directory and overwrite arbitrary files writable by the server process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-86541
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 contain a path traversal vulnerability in the handleCodeReplace() function that allows attackers to overwrite arbitrary files outside the project root. Attackers can supply absolute paths or relative paths containing directory traversal sequences to write malicious content to sensitive files like shell startup scripts or SSH configuration files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86540
SUMMARY

knowns versions before 0.30.0 fail to validate the settings.lsp.languages binary field in project configuration files, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary binaries by crafting a malicious .knowns/config.json file. When a repository with a crafted configuration is opened, the unvalidated binary path is executed twice under the user's account without any verification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-07
UPDATED
Date2026-09-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8