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

Comparison Overview

Signal MessengerSignal Messenger
VS
FanaticsFanatics
Signal Messenger

Signal Messenger

3000 16th St, San Francisco, US

Last Update: 01/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://signal.org
688/1000Weak

Privacy is possible. Signal Messenger makes it easy. At Signal, our goal is to develop open source privacy technology that protects privacy rights, promotes free expression and enables secure global communication. We believe that private messaging should be simple an...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:109
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2
Fanatics

Fanatics

95 Morton St, New York, NY, US, 10014

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.fanaticsinc.com
798/1000Fair

Fanatics is a leading global digital sports platform. We ignite the passions of global sports fans and maximize the presence and reach for our hundreds of sports partners globally by offering products and services across Fanatics Commerce, Fanatics Collectibles, and Fan...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:13,600
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Signal Messenger

Signal Messenger

-
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
Fanatics

Fanatics

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Signal Messenger has 21.95% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fanatics in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Signal Messenger (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Signal Messenger cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Fanatics 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...
Signal Messenger

Signal Messenger

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SIG1780295029
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
WHABUNSIG1773750470
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SURSIGULT1774535812
Fanatics

Fanatics

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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