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

Comparison Overview

Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
VS
LazadaLazada
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
475/1000Critical

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
Lazada

Lazada

51 Bras Basah Road, Singapore, Singapore, SG, 189554

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://group.lazada.com/
801/1000Good

About Lazada Group Founded in 2012, Lazada Group is the leading eCommerce platform in Southeast Asia. We are accelerating progress in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam through commerce and technology. With the largest logistics and ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:21,530
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
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
Lazada

Lazada

-
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)

Pitney Bowes has 183.02% more 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 Lazada in 2026.

Incidents

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

Incident History - Lazada (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lazada cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

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

Lazada

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12191
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Comma AI Openpilot 0.11. This issue affects the function pickle.load/pickle.loads of the file selfdrive/modeld/modeld.py of the component Pickle Module. The manipulation results in deserialization. The attack is only possible with local access. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12190
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Genspark AI Workspace App 2.8.4 on Android. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component ai.mainfunc.genspark. The manipulation leads to improper authorization in handler for custom url scheme. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12189
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Moovit Bus & Public Transit App 1.18 on Android. This affects an unknown part of the component com.tranzmate. Executing a manipulation can lead to improper authorization in handler for custom url scheme. The attack can only be executed locally. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/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
1.8
CVE-2026-12188
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Grit42 Grit up to 0.11.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file modules/core/backend/app/controllers/concerns/grit/core/grit_entity_controller.rb of the component GritEntityController. Performing a manipulation results in sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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:L/UI:N/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
CVE-2026-12187
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in GL.iNet GL-MT3000 up to 4.4.5. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /usr/bin/one_click_upgrade of the component Online Firmware Upgrade Handler. Such manipulation leads to command injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.7 addresses this issue. Upgrading the affected component is advised. The vendor was contacted early, responded in a very professional manner and quickly released a fixed version of the affected product.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-14
UPDATED
Date2026-06-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8