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
Microchip Technology Inc.Microchip Technology Inc.
Qualcomm

Qualcomm

Qualcomm, San Diego, 92121, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.qualcomm.com/
798/1000Fair

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
Microchip Technology Inc.

Microchip Technology Inc.

Chandler, AZ, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.microchip.com/
603/1000Poor

Microchip Technology Inc. is a leading semiconductor supplier of smart, connected and secure embedded control solutions. Its easy-to-use development tools and comprehensive product portfolio enable customers to create optimal designs which reduce risk while lowering tot...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:17,217
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
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
Microchip Technology Inc.

Microchip Technology Inc.

-
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 10.31% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Microchip Technology Inc. has 0.99% 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 - Microchip Technology Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Microchip Technology Inc. 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
Microchip Technology Inc.

Microchip Technology Inc.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MYPMIC1779819824
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MIC742060625
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MIC740060625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9