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 PartnersRed Hat Partners
VS
ByteDanceByteDance
Red Hat Partners

Red Hat Partners

100 E. Davie Street, Raleigh, 27601, US

Last Update: 26/01/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

The official LinkedIn page for the Red Hat Connect partner ecosystem. Find partner news and resources here.

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

ByteDance

China, 100098, CN

Last Update: 28/09/2026

View Profile
790/1000Fair

ByteDance is a global incubator of platforms at the cutting edge of commerce, content, entertainment and enterprise services - over 2.5bn people interact with ByteDance products including TikTok. Creation is the core of ByteDance's purpose. Our products are built to he...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:49,239
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Red Hat Partners

Red Hat Partners

-
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
ByteDance

ByteDance

-
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 Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

ByteDance has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Red Hat Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

ByteDance 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 Partners

Red Hat Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ByteDance

ByteDance

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OPEALIDEEMINGROBYTANT1790591285
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BYT000012225

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA