Comparison Overview

Samsung SDS

VS

Allianz Technology

Samsung SDS

Samsung SDS 125, Olympic-ro 35-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05510, KR
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Samsung SDS provides cloud computing and digital logistics services. We build an optimized cloud environment with Samsung Cloud Platform specialized for businesses, provide all-in-one management service based on 38 years of expertise in each industry, and boost work efficiency and customer service with our SaaS solution, which proved successful in many use cases. Your only partner to present a reasonable answer to the complex challenge of digital transformation is Samsung SDS. Samsung SDS prides itself in leading IT innovation in Korea for over years while spending every year evolving to meet the needs of our clients and changing times. Our constant effort put us 21st in 2021 Gartner Global IT Service Business, and 1st in Manufacturing IT. We have also been named the 12th Most Valuable Global IT Services Brand by Brand Finance UK in 2023, showing how we have grown into a global top-tier company. Samsung SDS offers cloud-based digital transformation services with distinguished cloud technology and rich industry experience. We are recognized by global consultants such as Gartner, IDC, and Frost & Sullivan in their lists of Managed Cloud Services, Cloud Security, and AI Industry as a specialized cloud service company supporting clients' digital innovation.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 14,835
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Allianz Technology

Dieselstraße 8, Unterföhring, Bavaria, DE, 85774
Last Update: 2026-01-17

With its headquarters in Munich, Germany, Allianz Technology is Allianz's global IT service provider and delivers IT solutions that drive the group's digitalization. With more than 11,000 employees in more than 20 countries around the world, Allianz Technology is tasked to run, optimize, transform, and innovate the infrastructure, applications, and services together with Allianz companies to co-create the best customer experience. We service the entire spectrum of digitalization - from one of the industry's largest IT infrastructure projects that spans data centres, networks, and security, to application platforms ranging from workplace services to digital interaction. In short: We deliver comprehensive end-to-end IT solutions for Allianz in the digital age. We are the backbone of Allianz.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 11,516
Subsidiaries: 130
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
3

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsung-sds.jpeg
Samsung SDS
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/allianz-technology.jpeg
Allianz Technology
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
Samsung SDS
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Allianz Technology
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Samsung SDS in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Allianz Technology in 2026.

Incident History — Samsung SDS (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung SDS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Allianz Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Allianz Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/samsung-sds.jpeg
Samsung SDS
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/allianz-technology.jpeg
Allianz Technology
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party CRM compromise, Malware deployment (ransomware), Unauthorized access
Motivation: Data Theft, Financial Gain (likely)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploitation of Salesforce Instances, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Extortion, Data Theft for Resale or Fraud
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 7/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Impersonation (IT Personnel), Unauthorized Remote Access, Exploitation of Salesforce Data Loader Tool
Motivation: Data Theft, Extortion (potential, unconfirmed)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Samsung SDS company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Allianz Technology company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Allianz Technology company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Samsung SDS company has not reported any.

In the current year, Allianz Technology company and Samsung SDS company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Allianz Technology company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Samsung SDS company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Allianz Technology company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Samsung SDS company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Allianz Technology company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Samsung SDS company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Samsung SDS company nor Allianz Technology company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Allianz Technology company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Samsung SDS company.

Samsung SDS company employs more people globally than Allianz Technology company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Samsung SDS nor Allianz Technology holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N