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

Comparison Overview

Shield ReplyShield Reply
VS
Amazon Web Services (AWS)Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Shield Reply

Shield Reply

160 Victoria Street, Westminster, London, SW1E 5LB, GB

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
750/1000Fair

Shield Reply specialises in driving technology-led transformational change for Defence and Security customers through the design and delivery of cloud-based services and solutions to protect our collective futures. Our strength is our ability to merge security-cleared e...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:20
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

410 Terry Ave N, Seattle, WA, US, 98019

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://aws.amazon.com
595/1000Very Poor

Launched in 2006, Amazon Web Services (AWS) began exposing key infrastructure services to businesses in the form of web services -- now widely known as cloud computing. The ultimate benefit of cloud computing, and AWS, is the ability to leverage a new business model and...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:153,837
Subsidiaries:92
12-month incidents
17
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Shield Reply

Shield Reply

-
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
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Shield Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

Amazon Web Services (AWS) has 1488.79% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Shield Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Shield Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Amazon Web Services (AWS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Amazon Web Services (AWS) 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...
Shield Reply

Shield Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
HEAAMA1782153018
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOAMA1781166643
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ELAGITAMAOPENPM1780050263

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12814
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Comfast CF-WR631AX V3 up to 2.7.0.8. This issue affects the function system of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?section=ping_config of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument destination causes os command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out 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
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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-2026-12813
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in activepieces up to 0.83.0. This vulnerability affects the function handleUrlFile in the library packages/server/engine/src/lib/variables/processors/file.ts of the component File URL Handler. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed 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
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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-2026-12812
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Radware Cyber Controller up to 10.11.0. This affects an unknown part of the component HTML Report Generation. The manipulation leads to HTML injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. 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
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
2.1
CVE-2026-12811
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in kortix-ai suna up to 0.8.38. Affected by this issue is the function router.replace/router.push of the file apps/frontend/src/app/auth/page.tsx of the component Auth Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument returnURL can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 0.8.39 can resolve this issue. This patch is called f5dec7aa0c1b8fa0125938f292c0f2430ca75f6c. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The researcher explains: "The issue was fixed in v0.8.39 without notifying the wider user base via a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
2.8
CVE-2026-12810
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Edimax BR-6478AC V2 1.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function mp of the file /goform/mp of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument command results in command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
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