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

Comparison Overview

OWASP® FoundationOWASP® Foundation
VS
Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
OWASP® Foundation

OWASP® Foundation

401 Edgewater Place, Wakefield, 01880, US

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://http://owasp.org
760/1000Fair

The Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) is a worldwide free and open community focused on improving the security of software. Our mission is to make application security "visible,"​ so that people and organizations can make informed decisions about appli...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:648
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
502/1000Critical

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entiti...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,782
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OWASP® Foundation

OWASP® Foundation

-
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
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

-
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)

OWASP® Foundation has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Pitney Bowes has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - OWASP® Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OWASP® Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pitney Bowes 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...
OWASP® Foundation

OWASP® Foundation

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OWA1769633044
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIT1777335822
🔒 Incident : Breach
CARHOLPRI1776630318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97032
SUMMARY

HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97031
SUMMARY

Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97030
SUMMARY

A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96207
SUMMARY

Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-94510
SUMMARY

Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-08
UPDATED
Date2026-10-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.3
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9