Comparison Overview

Princeton Technology, Inc.

VS

Iowa PC Services, Inc.

Princeton Technology, Inc.

1691 Browning ave, Irvine, 92606, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

With headquarters in Orange County, California Princeton Technology, Inc. was founded in 1989 to provide design and manufacturing services to DRAM module makers. In 1996 Princeton Technology, Inc. began producing and selling DRAM modules and in 2003 started producing “Princeton Original” DRAM modules. Princeton Technology, Inc. is a global company with a well-developed network of design, manufacturing and distribution sources. To date, Princeton Technology, Inc. products have been sold in over 55 countries by a loyal group of leading importers, resellers and distributors. Since 2008, Princeton Technology, Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing industrial SSD and flash storage products. Today Princeton is using its technical memory expertise, global procurement network, and lean manufacturing practices to produce an outstanding quality line of high speed, durable, Lynx Solid States Drives. In today’s highly competitive business environment with quick product introduction, shorter product life cycles, tighter cost control and immediate delivery, Princeton is a reliable partner OEMs can depend on.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 18
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Iowa PC Services, Inc.

2520 Mansfield Drive, Des Moines, IA, US, 50317
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Iowa PC Services, Inc. provides you with all the services you need to keep your computer running its best. We’re happy to answer your questions, and help in any way we can. If you have an emergency, such as a computer that will not boot, or a hard drive that has crashed, call us for professional assistance in recovering your data and setting things right.

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/princeton-technology-inc.jpeg
Princeton Technology, Inc.
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/iowa-pc-services-inc..jpeg
Iowa PC Services, Inc.
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
Princeton Technology, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Iowa PC Services, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Princeton Technology, Inc. in 2025.

Incidents vs Computer Hardware Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Iowa PC Services, Inc. in 2025.

Incident History — Princeton Technology, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Princeton Technology, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Iowa PC Services, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Iowa PC Services, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/princeton-technology-inc.jpeg
Princeton Technology, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iowa-pc-services-inc..jpeg
Iowa PC Services, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Iowa PC Services, Inc. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Princeton Technology, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Iowa PC Services, Inc. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Princeton Technology, Inc. company.

In the current year, Iowa PC Services, Inc. company and Princeton Technology, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Iowa PC Services, Inc. company nor Princeton Technology, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Iowa PC Services, Inc. company nor Princeton Technology, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Iowa PC Services, Inc. company nor Princeton Technology, Inc. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. company nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. company nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Princeton Technology, Inc. company employs more people globally than Iowa PC Services, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a Computer Hardware.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Princeton Technology, Inc. nor Iowa PC Services, Inc. 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