Comparison Overview

Positive Technologies

VS

Times Internet

Positive Technologies

None
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Positive Technologies is a leading developer of products, solutions and services for result-driven cybersecurity that enable detection and prevention of attacks before they cause unacceptable damage to businesses and entire economic sectors. The company's technology portfolio covers most categories of information security tools and continues to expand. We create meta-products — a new generation of tools for achieving effective cybersecurity with minimal human involvement. For over 20 years, we've been creating and implementing technologies that demonstrate real results in cybersecurity and radically improve our clients' security levels.

NAICS: 513
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 711
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Times Internet

391, Udyog Vihar Phase III, Gurgaon , Haryana, IN, 122002
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

At Times Internet, we create premium digital products that simplify and enhance the lives of millions. As India’s largest digital products company, we have a significant presence across a wide range of categories, including News, Sports, Fintech, and Enterprise solutions. Our portfolio features market-leading and iconic brands such as TOI, ET, NBT, Cricbuzz, Times Prime, Times Card, Indiatimes, Whatshot, Abound, Willow TV, Techgig and Times Mobile among many more. Each of these products is crafted to enrich your experiences and bring you closer to your interests and aspirations. As an equal opportunity employer, Times Internet strongly promotes inclusivity and diversity. We are proud to have achieved overall gender pay parity in 2018, verified by an independent audit conducted by Aon Hewitt. We are driven by the excitement of new possibilities and are committed to bringing innovative products, ideas, and technologies to help people make the most of every day. Join us and take us to the next level!

NAICS: 513
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 13,519
Subsidiaries: 44
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/positivetechnologies.jpeg
Positive Technologies
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/timesinternet.jpeg
Times Internet
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
Positive Technologies
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Times Internet
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Positive Technologies in 2026.

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Times Internet in 2026.

Incident History — Positive Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Positive Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Times Internet (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Times Internet cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/positivetechnologies.jpeg
Positive Technologies
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Phishing emails
Motivation: Financial gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/timesinternet.jpeg
Times Internet
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Times Internet company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Positive Technologies company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Positive Technologies company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Times Internet company has not reported any.

In the current year, Times Internet company and Positive Technologies company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Times Internet company nor Positive Technologies company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Times Internet company nor Positive Technologies company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Positive Technologies company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Times Internet company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Positive Technologies company nor Times Internet company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Times Internet company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Positive Technologies company.

Times Internet company employs more people globally than Positive Technologies company, reflecting its scale as a Technology, Information and Internet.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Positive Technologies nor Times Internet holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N