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

Comparison Overview

Red Canary, a Zscaler companyRed Canary, a Zscaler company
VS
Palo Alto NetworksPalo Alto Networks
Red Canary, a Zscaler company

Red Canary, a Zscaler company

1601 19th St, Denver, Colorado, US, 80202

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://redcanary.com/
668/1000Weak

Red Canary stops cyber threats no one else does, so organizations can fearlessly pursue their missions. Security leaders all share one goal: ‘Don’t get breached.’ Since day one at Red Canary, enterprises have relied on us to find and stop threats before they can cause h...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:404
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, California, US, 95054

Last Update: 02/07/2026

View Profile
729/1000Moderate

Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:18,620
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Red Canary, a Zscaler company

Red Canary, a Zscaler company

-
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
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

-
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 Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Canary, a Zscaler company in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Palo Alto Networks has 560.38% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Red Canary, a Zscaler company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Canary, a Zscaler company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Palo Alto Networks 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 Canary, a Zscaler company

Red Canary, a Zscaler company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HUNREDEXP1768977371
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VIDRED1770978271
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1780115030
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1775738158
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
FOR1773937523

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59705
SUMMARY

mem0's openmemory/api component contains an unauthenticated access vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to read, write, and delete arbitrary user memories by accessing API routers registered without authentication middleware. Attackers can supply arbitrary user_id parameters or directly access memory retrieval endpoints to expose private memory content, or invoke pause endpoints with global_pause=true to cause denial-of-service across all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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-2026-59704
SUMMARY

Cap's GET /api/video/ai endpoint fails to validate user ownership or membership before returning private video AI metadata including titles, summaries, and chapters. Authenticated attackers can supply arbitrary video IDs to read sensitive AI-generated content and trigger unauthorized AI generation that consumes the video owner's credits without consent.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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-2026-55078
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Starting in version 2.17.0 and prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, `POST /api/v2/files` converts zip uploads to tar in memory via `CreateTarFromZip`, which enforced a per-entry size limit but no aggregate limit on total decompressed output, writing to an unbounded in-memory buffer. Exploitation requires authenticated file-upload access and the impact is limited to availability (denial of service). The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 adds a metadata preflight check that sums projected entry sizes and a streaming writer that enforces the aggregate limit during decompression. As a workaround, restrict file-upload permissions to trusted users or place a reverse proxy with request-body size limits in front of `coderd`.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-55077
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, the `PUT /api/v2/users/{user}/password` endpoint authorized only `ActionUpdatePersonal` and did not prevent a `user-admin` from resetting an `owner` account's password. It also did not require the current password when an admin reset another user's password. Exploitation requires the privileged `user-admin` role so practical risk is limited to deployments that grant `user-admin` to less trusted operators. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 prevents non-owner users from resetting the password of an account that holds the `owner` role. As a workaround, restrict the `user-admin` role to trusted administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-55076
SUMMARY

Coder allows organizations to provision remote development environments via Terraform. Prior to versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2, Coder's OIDC callback checked `email_verified` with a direct Go `bool` type assertion. When an IdP returned the claim as a non-boolean (for example the string `"false"`) or omitted it, the assertion failed open and the email was treated as verified. Combined with an unconditional email-based account fallback, this enabled account takeover. The fix in versions 2.29.7, 2.32.7, 2.33.8, and 2.34.2 coerces `email_verified` across bool, string and numeric types (fail-closed) and blocks the email fallback when the matched user already has a different linked IdP subject. As a workaround, ensure the IdP returns `email_verified` as a native JSON boolean. The email-fallback linking issue has no configuration workaround; upgrading is required.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-07
UPDATED
Date2026-07-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2