Comparison Overview

Pitney Bowes

VS

Cisco

Pitney Bowes

3001 Summer Street, None, Stamford, CT, US, 06926
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven products and services company that provides SaaS 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 entities rely on Pitney Bowes to reduce the complexity of sending mail and parcels. For additional information, visit Pitney Bowes at www.pitneybowes.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 12,875
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Cisco

Tasman Way, None, San Jose, CA, US, 95134
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 550 and 599

Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its customers, partners and communities to unlock innovation, enhance productivity and strengthen digital resilience. With purpose at its core, Cisco remains committed to creating a more connected and inclusive future for all.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 94,948
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
15
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pitney-bowes.jpeg
Pitney Bowes
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Pitney Bowes
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cisco
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Pitney Bowes in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Cisco has 3309.09% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Pitney Bowes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pitney-bowes.jpeg
Pitney Bowes
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2019
Type:Malware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploited Vulnerabilities (unspecified), Phishing/Social Engineering (likely), DDoS Attacks, Threatening Calls to Executives
Motivation: Financial Gain (ransomware proceeds, access sales)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation (Cisco ASA), Malware Implantation, Command Execution, Potential Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote, Network-based, Crafted Input Injection
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Pitney Bowes company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cisco company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cisco company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Pitney Bowes company.

In the current year, Cisco company has reported more cyber incidents than Pitney Bowes company.

Both Cisco company and Pitney Bowes company have confirmed experiencing at least one ransomware attack.

Cisco company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Pitney Bowes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cisco company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Pitney Bowes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cisco company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Pitney Bowes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cisco company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Pitney Bowes company.

Cisco company employs more people globally than Pitney Bowes company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Pitney Bowes nor Cisco holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H