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

Comparison Overview

Qihoo 360Qihoo 360
VS
PersonalPersonal
Qihoo 360

Qihoo 360

酒仙桥路6号院(电子城·国际电子总部)2号楼, 朝阳区, CN

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.360.cn/
746/1000Moderate

Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (NYSE: QIHU) is a leading Internet company in China. The Company is also the number one provider of Internet and mobile security products in China as measured by its user base, according to iResearch. Qihoo 360 also provides users with secu...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:3,034
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Personal

Personal

Calle General Hornos 690, Comuna 1, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, AR, 1272

Last Update: 27/07/2026

View Profile
801/1000Good

En Personal, ponemos a las personas en el centro. Somos el ecosistema de servicios de Telecom Argentina S.A. que conecta a cada persona con todo lo que le importa. Nuestra propuesta está pensada para que cada persona, comunidad y organización pueda avanzar, disfrutar y ...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:18,212
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Qihoo 360

Qihoo 360

-
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
Personal

Personal

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Qihoo 360 has 38.65% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Personal in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Qihoo 360 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Qihoo 360 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Personal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Qihoo 360

Qihoo 360

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
QIH1770215688
Personal

Personal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Qihoo 360 company and Personal company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Qihoo 360 and Personal, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Qihoo 360 and Personal, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Qihoo 360 or Personal ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Qihoo 360 or Personal ?
Between Qihoo 360 and Personal, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Qihoo 360 and Personal, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86564
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in DPDK lib/vhost. Missing length validation before reading command_data in the virtio-net control-queue handler can cause an out-of-bounds read and a host process crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-55250
SUMMARY

Maravel, a PHP framework oriented towards dependency injection, prior to version 10.74.0 has a high-severity Token Replay Vulnerability arising from a structural lifecycle mismatch between stateless token validation engines and high-performance relational caching layers. Any application with low cache memory that causes premature eviction to free up memory and applications running macropay-solutions/maravel-framework that utilize tymon/jwt-auth for API token authentication and blacklist management or any other package that does the same may be affected. This architectural risk might also impact native Laravel applications utilizing cache tags under specific volatile or eviction-capped environments. tymon/jwt-auth automatically probes for cache tag support. If found, it forcefully wraps 14-day token blacklist entries (jti) inside a relational tymon.jwt tag. In environments where the O(1) Atomic Lazy Eviction model is active — either natively inside Maravel-Framework v20.x or manually backported into v10.x via the explicit DI container singletons provided in PR #104 (App\Cache\TaggedCache and App\Cache\TagSet) — a strict global tracking ceiling (Container::TAGGED_CACHE_TTL_CAP_SECONDS) of 7,200 seconds (2 hours) is enforced to secure the system against memory index bloat. This ceiling forcefully truncates the 14-day blacklist lifespan down to a maximum of 2 hours, after which individual tracking keys naturally expire and disappear from the active cache window. Furthermore, because the optimized engine implements a generational version matrix to achieve O(1) flush speeds, any programmatic or manual invocation of a tag flush or reset (e.g., Cache::tags([...])->flush()) instantly bumps the internal atomic master version pointer. This shifts the computed cryptographic composite hash (sha1($this->tags->getNamespace())) for all overlapping components, rendering the entire existing index immediately unreachable. Consequently, through either natural 2-hour expiration or an intervening tag flush execution (like the cache naturally cleaning old values to free up memory), the invalidation state records are entirely wiped out. Because the tokens' physical cryptographic signatures remain structurally valid for up to 14 days, stolen, hijacked, or legitimately logged-out tokens are instantly and silently resurrected across the entire API gateway, leaving the application critically vulnerable to widespread Token Replay Attacks. Because this issue is caused by an upstream architectural assumption within the tymon/jwt-auth package rather than a core defect inside the framework, there is no direct framework version upgrade that can safely bypass this lifecycle collision without breaking business cache recycling bounds. Maravel version 10.74.0 introduced a way to backport the new fixed tagged cache from 20.x into 10.x by resolving TagSet and TaggedCache from DI, which is how this latent architectural lifecycle vulnerability was discovered. Users must apply the decoupled configuration workaround outlined below. As a workaround, make sure that cache memory size does not generate early natural evictions from cache to free up space, deleting blacklisted jwt ids before they expire. Applications must decouple flat authentication vectors from the relational tagging subsystem. This forces token identifiers to write directly to the primary cache keyspace as flat, un-tagged key-value pairs where they securely retain their unclipped 14-day lifecycle.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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-2026-53639
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-53638
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, an authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the shop account API. The `PATCH /api/v2/shop/account/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}` endpoint, used by an authenticated shop customer to change the payment method of an order that has been placed but not yet paid (state `STATE_NEW`), does not validate that the chosen payment method is enabled for the order's channel. The equivalent checkout endpoint (`PATCH /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}`) correctly rejects out-of-channel payment methods with `HTTP 422`; the account endpoint silently accepts them and returns `HTTP 200`. An authenticated customer can therefore assign any globally enabled payment method to their own placed order, including methods that the store operator has explicitly excluded from that channel. The issue is fixed in versions: 2.0.18, 2.1.15, 2.2.6 and above. As a workaround, decorate the `Sylius\Bundle\ApiBundle\Changer\PaymentMethodChangerInterface` service in the application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53637
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Versions 2.0.0 through 2.0.17, 2.1.0 through 2.1.14, and 2.2.0 through 2.2.5 contain an improper workflow enforcement vulnerability in the cart `FormComponent`. When an order is completed while its cart page remains open, the stale LiveComponent does not detect the order’s changed state and continues to permit cart actions, allowing an authenticated customer to modify or permanently delete an already completed order. Versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6 contain a patch. As a workaround, deployments can copy the patched `FormComponent` into the application's `src/` directory and override the `sylius_shop.twig.component.cart.form` service definition to use that class.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8