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

Comparison Overview

QualcommQualcomm
VS
ASMLASML
Qualcomm

Qualcomm

Qualcomm, San Diego, 92121, US

Last Update: 06/07/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.qualcomm.com/
794/1000Fair

Inspired by 250 years of American ingenuity, we build technologies that expand what’s possible. From wireless to AI at scale and 6G, our innovations power progress worldwide.

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:57,635
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3
ASML

ASML

De Run 6501, Veldhoven, 5504DR, NL

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.asml.com
820/1000Good

Who are we? ASML is an innovation leader in the global semiconductor industry. We make machines that chipmakers use to mass produce microchips. Founded in 1984 in the Netherlands with just a handful of employees, we’ve now grown to over 40,000 employees, 143 nationalit...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:35,826
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Qualcomm

Qualcomm

-
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
ASML

ASML

-
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 Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Qualcomm has 18.03% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

ASML has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Qualcomm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

ASML 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...
Qualcomm

Qualcomm

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TATQUA1782477239
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
QUAAND1772563499
🔒 Incident : Breach
TATTSMQUA1782491371
ASML

ASML

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8