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

Comparison Overview

Progress SoftwareProgress Software
VS
MetaMeta
Progress Software

Progress Software

15 Wayside Rd, Burlington, Massachusetts, US, 01803

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.progress.com/
468/1000Critical

Progress Software (Nasdaq: PRGS) empowers organizations to achieve transformational success in the face of disruptive change. Our software enables our customers to develop,deploy and manage responsible AI-powered applications and digital experiences with agility and eas...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:4,227
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3
Meta

Meta

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, CA, US, 94025

Last Update: 18/08/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.metacareers.com/
640/1000Poor

Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Our technologies help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. When Facebook launched in 2004, it changed the way people connect. Apps like Messenger, In...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:146,293
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
12
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Progress Software

Progress Software

-
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
Meta

Meta

-
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)

Progress Software has 277.36% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Meta has 579.61% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

Meta 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 Software

Progress Software

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CITPRO1783931784
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PRO1780921490
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PRO1777883125
Meta

Meta

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MET1780302304
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591
🔒 Incident : Breach
INSMET1777587835

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-78147
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in ggml-org llama.cpp bec4772f6. The impacted element is the function deserialize_tensor of the file ggml/src/ggml-rpc/ggml-rpc.cpp of the component ggml-RPC Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument op/op_params results in deserialization. The attack may be initiated remotely. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2026-34159 (GHSA-j8rj-fmpv-wcxw, PR #20908), which only added a buffer==nullptr rejection in create_node() and does not validate op or op_params. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-78145
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in CTFd up to 3.8.4. The affected element is the function _is_safe_url of the file CTFd/utils/validators/__init__.py. Such manipulation of the argument Next leads to open redirect. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 5d8515842fd1ab2c3a9f2dde9ffca907aa334ea9. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78144
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /boarders.php of the component Boarder Management Module. Such manipulation of the argument ID leads to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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-2026-78143
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file residents.php of the component Resident Search Functionality. This manipulation of the argument Search causes sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-78142
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /archived_records.php of the component Restore/Delete. The manipulation of the argument resident_id results in authorization bypass. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
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