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

Comparison Overview

Progress SitefinityProgress Sitefinity
VS
Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
Progress Sitefinity

Progress Sitefinity

15 Wayside Rd, Burlington, 01803, US

Last Update: 28/02/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Progress Sitefinity is the AI-powered CMS at the heart of the Progress DXP - built to help teams move faster and smarter. Developers get freedom: .NET Core, Next.js and modern APIs support composable, headless or hybrid delivery—on your terms. IT gets peace of mind:...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Progress Sitefinity

Progress Sitefinity

-
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
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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Progress Sitefinity in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Pitney Bowes has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Progress Sitefinity (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Progress Sitefinity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Progress Sitefinity

Progress Sitefinity

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66591
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in David Lingren Media LIbrary Assistant allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Media LIbrary Assistant: from n/a through 3.39.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-66589
SUMMARY

Missing Authorization vulnerability in Kings Plugins B2BKing allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels. This issue affects B2BKing: from n/a through 5.2.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-27365
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Series allows Stored XSS. This issue affects PublishPress Series: from n/a through 2.17.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-73974
SUMMARY

linuxfabrik-lib provides Python modules for database access, caching, shell execution, and API integrations, and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins uses its shared testing helper across check plugins. Prior to linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0, lib.lftest.test() treated the first or second element of a --test CSV argument as a filesystem path and returned the file contents as simulated standard output or standard error without path confinement. The hidden but production-accessible --test argument was accepted by sudo-authorized plugins, so an attacker controlling the nagios or icinga account could use check-plugins/deb-updates/deb-updates with its default QUERY=1 to disclose every line of a root-readable file. Approximately 22 other plugins exposed filtered content or a root file existence and readability oracle through the same helper, while check-plugins/network-bonding/network-bonding and check-plugins/openstack-swift-stat/openstack-swift-stat had direct read paths that bypassed the helper. The library fix confines fixture reads to the invoking plugin's unit-test directory and refuses unsafe anchors, and the plugin fix routes the two bypasses through that helper. These issues are fixed in linuxfabrik-lib 6.1.0 and Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-73973
SUMMARY

Linuxfabrik Monitoring Plugins provides monitoring plugins for Icinga, Nagios, and related systems. Prior to version 7.0.0, check-plugins/logfile/logfile accepted a free-form --filename path and opened it as root when invoked through the shipped nagios or icinga sudoers allowlist, without confining the resolved path to /var/log. An attacker who controls the monitoring account can select a root-readable file such as /etc/shadow and use --warning-regex . while leaving SUPPRESS_OUTPUT false, causing each nonempty line to be collected in warn_matches and returned through lib.base.oao(). The vulnerable flow passes the expanded scan_path directly to open(), and neither real-path containment nor an allowlist protects the sink. The same fix also confines mysql-logfile and openvpn-client-list paths, allows only documented log roots, and resolves symlinks and parent-directory traversal before checking containment. This issue is fixed in version 7.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-18
UPDATED
Date2026-08-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8