Comparison Overview

Sage

VS

Adobe

Sage

North Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, undefined, NE13 9AA, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

At Sage, we knock down barriers with information, insights, and tools to help your business flow. We provide businesses with software and services that are simple and easy to use, as we work with you to give you that feeling of confidence. Customers trust our Payroll, HR, and Finance software to make business flow with ease. From our local network of experts to our ever-growing partnerships, we are on hand to give you all the insights you need to thrive. 💚

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 14,135
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Adobe

345 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA, US, 95110-2704
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

Adobe is the global leader in digital media and digital marketing solutions. Our creative, marketing and document solutions empower everyone – from emerging artists to global brands – to bring digital creations to life and deliver immersive, compelling experiences to the right person at the right moment for the best results. In short, Adobe is everywhere, and we’re changing the world through digital experiences.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 40,571
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sage-software.jpeg
Sage
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/adobe.jpeg
Adobe
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
Sage
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Adobe
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sage in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Adobe has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Sage cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Adobe cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sage-software.jpeg
Sage
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2016
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unsecured Databases
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/adobe.jpeg
Adobe
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email (HTML Attachments), Fake Login Prompts, Telegram Bot API for Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain (Credential Theft), Data Exfiltration for Dark Web Sales, Potential Follow-on Attacks (e.g., Ransomware, BEC)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network-Based, Exploitation of Public-Facing Application
Motivation: Opportunistic, Financial Gain (Potential), Data Theft (Potential), Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network-Based, Exploitation of Public-Facing Application (CVE-2025-54236), REST API Abuse
Motivation: Opportunistic, Financial Gain (Potential), Data Theft
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Adobe company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sage company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Adobe company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Sage company.

In the current year, Adobe company has reported more cyber incidents than Sage company.

Neither Adobe company nor Sage company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Adobe company and Sage company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Adobe company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Sage company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Adobe company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Sage company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Adobe company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sage company.

Adobe company employs more people globally than Sage company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sage nor Adobe holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H