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

Comparison Overview

Seeing MachinesSeeing Machines
VS
EPAM SystemsEPAM Systems
Seeing Machines

Seeing Machines

80 Mildura St, Fyshwick, 2609, AU

Last Update: 08/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://seeingmachines.com
644/1000Poor

Seeing Machines is a global company headquartered in Canberra, Australia delivering safety technology to transport industries across the world. An industry leader in computer vision technologies which enable machines to see, understand and assist people, Seeing Machin...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:422
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

41 University Drive Suite 202, Newtown, PA, US, 18940

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.epam.com
775/1000Fair

Since 1993, EPAM Systems, Inc. (NYSE: EPAM) has used its software engineering expertise to become a leading global provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading business and experience consulting partner for global enterpri...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:63,943
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Seeing Machines

Seeing Machines

-
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
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Seeing Machines has 34.21% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for EPAM Systems in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Seeing Machines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Seeing Machines cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EPAM Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EPAM Systems 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...
Seeing Machines

Seeing Machines

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SEE1775622455
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2