Comparison Overview

Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation

VS

NetEase

Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation

None
Last Update: 2025-12-02
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://rubyonrails.org

The Rails Foundation is a non-profit foundation set up to improve the documentation, education, marketing, and events of the Ruby on Rails framework to the benefit of all new and existing Rails developers, and to ensure a prosperous ecosystem that continues to improve for decades to come. In alphabetical order, the eight founding core members of the foundation are: Cookpad, Doximity, Fleetio, GitHub, Intercom, Procore, Shopify, and 37signals.

NAICS: 513
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
View Profile

NetEase

No.599 Wangshang Road, Binjiang District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, CN, 310052
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 800 and 849
https://ir.netease.com/

As a leading internet technology company based in China, NetEase, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTES and HKEX:9999, "NetEase") provides premium online services centered around content creation. With extensive offerings across its expanding gaming ecosystem, NetEase develops and operates some of China's most popular and longest running mobile and PC games. Powered by industry-leading inhouse R&D capabilities in China and globally, NetEase creates superior gaming experiences, inspires players and passionately delivers value for its thriving community worldwide. Beyond games, NetEase service offerings include its majority-controlled subsidiaries Youdao (NYSE:DAO), China's leading technology-focused intelligent learning company, and Cloud Music (HKEX:9899), China's leading online music content community, as well as Yanxuan, NetEase's private label consumer lifestyle brand.

NAICS: 513
NAICS Definition: Others
Employees: 11,907
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ruby-on-rails-org.jpeg
Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/netease.jpeg
NetEase
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
NetEase
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation in 2025.

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NetEase in 2025.

Incident History — Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — NetEase (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NetEase cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ruby-on-rails-org.jpeg
Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Motivation: Unauthorized actions, Data exfiltration, Fraudulent transactions
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/netease.jpeg
NetEase
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

NetEase company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas NetEase company has not reported any.

In the current year, NetEase company and Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither NetEase company nor Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither NetEase company nor Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither NetEase company nor Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while NetEase company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

NetEase company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company.

NetEase company employs more people globally than Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation company, reflecting its scale as a Technology, Information and Internet.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ruby on Rails - The Rails Foundation nor NetEase holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdgpu: hide VRAM sysfs attributes on GPUs without VRAM Otherwise accessing them can cause a crash.

Published
Date
2025-12-06
Updated
Date
2025-12-06
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amdgpu: Fix NULL pointer dereference in VRAM logic for APU devices Previously, APU platforms (and other scenarios with uninitialized VRAM managers) triggered a NULL pointer dereference in `ttm_resource_manager_usage()`. The root cause is not that the `struct ttm_resource_manager *man` pointer itself is NULL, but that `man->bdev` (the backing device pointer within the manager) remains uninitialized (NULL) on APUs—since APUs lack dedicated VRAM and do not fully set up VRAM manager structures. When `ttm_resource_manager_usage()` attempts to acquire `man->bdev->lru_lock`, it dereferences the NULL `man->bdev`, leading to a kernel OOPS. 1. **amdgpu_cs.c**: Extend the existing bandwidth control check in `amdgpu_cs_get_threshold_for_moves()` to include a check for `ttm_resource_manager_used()`. If the manager is not used (uninitialized `bdev`), return 0 for migration thresholds immediately—skipping VRAM-specific logic that would trigger the NULL dereference. 2. **amdgpu_kms.c**: Update the `AMDGPU_INFO_VRAM_USAGE` ioctl and memory info reporting to use a conditional: if the manager is used, return the real VRAM usage; otherwise, return 0. This avoids accessing `man->bdev` when it is NULL. 3. **amdgpu_virt.c**: Modify the vf2pf (virtual function to physical function) data write path. Use `ttm_resource_manager_used()` to check validity: if the manager is usable, calculate `fb_usage` from VRAM usage; otherwise, set `fb_usage` to 0 (APUs have no discrete framebuffer to report). This approach is more robust than APU-specific checks because it: - Works for all scenarios where the VRAM manager is uninitialized (not just APUs), - Aligns with TTM's design by using its native helper function, - Preserves correct behavior for discrete GPUs (which have fully initialized `man->bdev` and pass the `ttm_resource_manager_used()` check). v4: use ttm_resource_manager_used(&adev->mman.vram_mgr.manager) instead of checking the adev->gmc.is_app_apu flag (Christian)

Published
Date
2025-12-06
Updated
Date
2025-12-06
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: exfat: fix improper check of dentry.stream.valid_size We found an infinite loop bug in the exFAT file system that can lead to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) condition. When a dentry in an exFAT filesystem is malformed, the following system calls — SYS_openat, SYS_ftruncate, and SYS_pwrite64 — can cause the kernel to hang. Root cause analysis shows that the size validation code in exfat_find() does not check whether dentry.stream.valid_size is negative. As a result, the system calls mentioned above can succeed and eventually trigger the DoS issue. This patch adds a check for negative dentry.stream.valid_size to prevent this vulnerability.

Published
Date
2025-12-06
Updated
Date
2025-12-06
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb/server: fix possible memory leak in smb2_read() Memory leak occurs when ksmbd_vfs_read() fails. Fix this by adding the missing kvfree().

Published
Date
2025-12-06
Updated
Date
2025-12-06
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: smb/server: fix possible refcount leak in smb2_sess_setup() Reference count of ksmbd_session will leak when session need reconnect. Fix this by adding the missing ksmbd_user_session_put().

Published
Date
2025-12-06
Updated
Date
2025-12-06
References