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
SageSage
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
Sage

Sage

North Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, GB, NE13 9AA

Last Update: 14/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sage.com
781/1000Fair

At Sage, we knock down barriers with information, insights, and tools to help your business flow. We provide businesses with software and services that are simple and easy to use, as we work with you to give you that feeling of confidence. Customers trust our Payroll,...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:15,347
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

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
Sage

Sage

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Sage in 2026.

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 - Sage (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sage 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
Sage

Sage

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAG3563622
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAG45021823

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA