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
WorkdayWorkday
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
Workday

Workday

6110 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Pleasanton, 94588, US

Last Update: 04/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.workday.com
656/1000Weak

By unifying HR and Finance on an open, trusted platform powered by AI, Workday delivers high-impact outcomes our customers can count on. At the heart of our platform is Sana from Workday—the superintelligence that puts AI agents to work for you and your people. Welcome ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:24,969
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

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
Workday

Workday

-
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)

Workday has 2.91% fewer 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 - Workday (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workday 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.
Workday

Workday

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
WORNOTGOOZOONIKTIN1777868873
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAL2862828092525
🔒 Incident : Breach
WOR1768679649

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9