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

Comparison Overview

SamsaraSamsara
VS
Pitney BowesPitney Bowes
Samsara

Samsara

1 De Haro St, San Francisco, 94107, US

Last Update: 03/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.samsara.com
790/1000Fair

Samsara (NYSE: IOT) is the pioneer of the Connected Operations® Platform, which enables organizations that depend on physical operations to harness Internet of Things (IoT) data to develop actionable insights and improve their operations. With tens of thousands of custo...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:5,173
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

27 Waterview Dr, Shelton, 06484, US

Last Update: 29/04/2026

View Profile
475/1000Critical

Pitney Bowes is a technology-driven company that provides digital shipping solutions, mailing innovation, and financial services to clients around the world – including more than 90 percent of the Fortune 500. Small businesses to large enterprises, and government entiti...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,782
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Samsara

Samsara

-
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
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

-
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 Samsara in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Pitney Bowes has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Samsara cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Pitney Bowes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Pitney Bowes 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...
Samsara

Samsara

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SAM1780527307
Pitney Bowes

Pitney Bowes

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
INDPITCARBASZARHAL1777466463
🔒 Incident : Breach
PIT1777335822
🔒 Incident : Breach
CARHOLPRI1776630318

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9