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

Comparison Overview

PulseSecure Pte LtdPulseSecure Pte Ltd
VS
Palo Alto NetworksPalo Alto Networks
PulseSecure Pte Ltd

PulseSecure Pte Ltd

36 Armenian Street, Singapore, 179934, SG

Last Update: 12/05/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.pulsesecure.com
803/1000Good

A member of CREST with a pool of CREST and OSCP certified security pentesters. Unparalleled skills, services and commitment in how we serve our customers coupled with our breadth of experience and knowledge enables us to better securing customers’ environment. Over 10 ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:44
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, 95054, US

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
589/1000Very Poor

Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:22,839
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
11
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PulseSecure Pte Ltd

PulseSecure Pte Ltd

-
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
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

-
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 Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

PulseSecure Pte Ltd has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Palo Alto Networks has 967.96% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - PulseSecure Pte Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PulseSecure Pte Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Palo Alto Networks 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...
PulseSecure Pte Ltd

PulseSecure Pte Ltd

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PULIVA1778545811
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PALIVASOPPULFOR1773764643
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CHEFORPALCIT1784881580
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1780115030
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1775738158

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA