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

Comparison Overview

Progress ShareFile PartnersProgress ShareFile Partners
VS
AvayaAvaya
Progress ShareFile Partners

Progress ShareFile Partners

undefined, Raleigh, North Carolina, undefined, US

Last Update: 30/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.sharefile.com/
752/1000Fair

We are a secure, cloud-based content collaboration platform that makes it easier for businesses to get work done on any device, anytime.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Avaya

Avaya

350 Mount Kemble Ave, Morristown, 07960, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

At Avaya, we give our customers the freedom to take their business in the directions that benefit them most. We provide the paths for both customers and their employees where every moment big and small can drive in the moment, memorable experiences. The journey is their...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,937
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Progress ShareFile Partners

Progress ShareFile Partners

-
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
Avaya

Avaya

-
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 Progress ShareFile Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Avaya in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Progress ShareFile Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Progress ShareFile Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Avaya 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...
Progress ShareFile Partners

Progress ShareFile Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Avaya

Avaya

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8