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

Comparison Overview

Oxford Languages | OUPOxford Languages | OUP
VS
GoogleGoogle
Oxford Languages | OUP

Oxford Languages | OUP

Great Clarendon Street, None, Oxford, Oxfordshire, GB, OX2 6DP

Last Update: 26/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://languages.oup.com/
755/1000Fair

Our purpose is simple: to unlock the power of language for all. With over 150 years of expertise and a forward-thinking approach to innovation, we deliver trusted, evidence-based language content in more than 60 languages. From bespoke datasets and intuitive APIs to t...

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

Google

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, 94043, US

Last Update: 25/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://goo.gle/3DLEokh
160/1000Critical

A problem isn't truly solved until it's solved for all. Googlers build products that help create opportunities for everyone, whether down the street or across the globe. Bring your insight, imagination and a healthy disregard for the impossible. Bring everything that ma...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:313,465
Subsidiaries:53
12-month incidents
54
Known data breaches
21
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Oxford Languages | OUP

Oxford Languages | OUP

-
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
Google

Google

-
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 Oxford Languages | OUP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Google has 5042.86% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Oxford Languages | OUP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Oxford Languages | OUP 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 - Google (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Google 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...
Oxford Languages | OUP

Oxford Languages | OUP

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Google

Google

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOOPE1787668071
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
AOLMICYAHFASGOO1786188226
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
GOOANTOPE1786465634

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
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: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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:N/UI:P/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