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

Comparison Overview

RMSRMS
VS
Cox Automotive Inc.Cox Automotive Inc.
RMS

RMS

7575 Gateway Blvd, Newark, 94560, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

** On September 27, 2024, we introduced our new LinkedIn company page: @Moody's - Insurance Solutions. ** This new page has replaced this RMS company page, and all our content will now only be shared on @Moody's - Insurance Solutions. If you already follow the RMS pag...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:3,785
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive Inc.

3003 Summit Blvd., 200, Atlanta, GA, US, 30319

Last Update: 30/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.coxautoinc.com/
775/1000Fair

Cox Automotive is the world’s largest automotive services and technology provider. Fueled by the largest breadth of first- and third-party data fed by 2.3 billion online interactions a year, Cox Automotive tailors leading solutions for car shoppers, auto manufacturers, ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,006
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
RMS

RMS

-
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
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive 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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RMS in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Automotive Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

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

RMS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Cox Automotive Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Automotive Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
RMS

RMS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cox Automotive Inc.

Cox Automotive Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2