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

Comparison Overview

Red Hat DeveloperRed Hat Developer
VS
MetaMeta
Red Hat Developer

Red Hat Developer

100 E Davie St, Raleigh, 27601, US

Last Update: 26/01/2026

View Profile
758/1000Fair

Join Red Hat Developer for the tools and training to develop in the cloud. Members get access to developer editions of Red Hat’s software, documentation, and premium books from our experts on microservices, Kubernetes, and Linux.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Meta

Meta

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

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.metacareers.com/
637/1000Poor

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
Red Hat Developer

Red Hat Developer

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Red Hat Developer in 2026.

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 - Red Hat Developer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat Developer 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...
Red Hat Developer

Red Hat Developer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Meta

Meta

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71983
SUMMARY

MSI Radix AXE6600 router firmware version v781521 contains a command injection vulnerability in the wps.cgi interface that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through the pin2g, pin5g, or pin6g parameters. Attackers can exploit these unsanitized parameters to execute arbitrary commands on the affected device and obtain root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71502
SUMMARY

CTI-Transmute contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability caused by insufficient neutralization of Vue template expression delimiters in server-rendered user-controlled data. An unauthenticated attacker can create a public conversion whose name or description contains a malicious Vue expression using the application's configured [[ ... ]] delimiters. User profile names may provide an additional injection vector. Although Jinja HTML escaping is applied, the resulting value is subsequently included in a DOM region compiled by Vue. Vue interprets the attacker-controlled value as a template expression rather than ordinary text. By accessing the JavaScript Function constructor from within the expression, an attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the security context of the CTI-Transmute origin. The application's nonce-based Content Security Policy does not prevent exploitation because the Vue runtime compiler requires the unsafe-eval policy exception. The malicious payload is stored by the application and executed whenever another user opens an affected page, such as the public conversion detail page. The victim may be a normal user or an administrator. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to: * Access data available to the victim through the application. * Extract API keys, tokens, or other sensitive information exposed to the page. * Perform authenticated actions using the victim's session. * Modify conversions or other application data. * Escalate the impact by targeting an administrator. A demonstrated payload can use [].constructor.constructor(...) to obtain the JavaScript Function constructor and execute arbitrary code. The regression tests also show that a short first-stage payload could retrieve an uncapped conversion description and evaluate a larger second-stage payload. The patch addresses the vulnerability by registering a global Jinja finalize hook that inserts a zero-width Unicode word joiner inside every Vue delimiter found in server-rendered values. This prevents Vue from recognizing the values as template expressions while preserving their visible representation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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-2026-71958
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the quicksetup.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write overly long strings to the test4, ssid2, and username fields and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71957
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write an overly long string to the netAcc.addlist[].name field and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71956
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a command injection vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can inject arbitrary malicious commands into the netDig.ping.dst field, resulting in command execution with root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9