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

Comparison Overview

SitePointSitePoint
VS
Arrow ElectronicsArrow Electronics
SitePoint

SitePoint

110 Johnston St, Fitzroy, 3065, AU

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
747/1000Moderate

SitePoint is one of the largest online communities of web professionals, with a large, vibrant forum, thousands of tutorials, and a wide range of books, kits, and other educational products. SitePoint is trusted by millions of web designers and developers every month....

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:30
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Arrow Electronics

Arrow Electronics

9201 East Dry Creek Road, Centennial, 80112, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
789/1000Fair

Arrow Electronics (NYSE:ARW) guides innovation forward for thousands of leading technology manufacturers and service providers. With 2024 sales of $27.9 billion, Arrow develops technology solutions that help improve business and daily life. Our broad portfolio that spa...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:21,599
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SitePoint

SitePoint

-
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
Arrow Electronics

Arrow Electronics

-
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)

No incidents recorded for SitePoint in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Arrow Electronics in 2026.

Incidents

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

SitePoint cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Arrow Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Arrow Electronics 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...
SitePoint

SitePoint

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SIT273622
Arrow Electronics

Arrow Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ARR408070825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10681
SUMMARY

In Zephyr's userspace dynamic-objects subsystem, thread_idx_alloc() in kernel/userspace/userspace.c allocated a new thread permission index from the global _thread_idx_map[] bitmap without holding lists_lock. On SMP systems, two user-mode threads invoking the k_object_alloc(K_OBJ_THREAD) syscall concurrently can both observe the same low free bit, perform the same non-atomic RMW to clear it, and return the identical tidx. The two newly created K_OBJ_THREAD objects are then assigned the same thread_id, so the two user threads alias a single bit position in every kernel object's perms[] bitfield: any subsequent grant of access on a kernel object to one thread is implicitly a grant to the other, defeating userspace ACL isolation. A secondary lost-update window between the unlocked &=~BIT() in alloc and the locked |= BIT() in thread_idx_free() can also leak entries from the thread-index pool. The defect is reachable from any user-mode thread via the unrestricted __syscall k_object_alloc and is gated on CONFIG_USERSPACE, CONFIG_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS, and CONFIG_SMP. The flaw was introduced when the per-thread permission index was added in 2018 and is present in every release up to and including v4.4.0. Fixed by holding lists_lock across the bitmap RMW and the permissions clear (and inlining the obj_list traversal that previously took the lock itself).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-66013
SUMMARY

OpenRemote before 1.26.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the console registration API that allows unauthenticated attackers to update existing console assets by supplying a known asset identifier. Attackers can overwrite push notification tokens and console metadata without authentication or ownership validation, redirecting notifications or denying delivery to legitimate consoles.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-66012
SUMMARY

SiYuan before v3.7.2 contains a missing authorization vulnerability in the POST /mcp kernel endpoint, which is gated only by a general auth check (model.CheckAuth) with no admin-role or read-only enforcement. This exposes 31 MCP tools, including a file tool with list/read/write/delete/rename/copy actions across the entire workspace. When the Publish server is enabled in anonymous mode (Conf.Publish.Enable=true and Conf.Publish.Auth.Enable=false), the Publish reverse proxy attaches an anonymous RoleReader JWT to proxied requests, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to reach /mcp. The attacker can read conf/conf.json to extract accessAuthCode, api.token, and cookieKey in plaintext, write arbitrary files in the workspace, and plant a plugin into data/plugins/ that executes with nodeIntegration:true and no contextIsolation on the next desktop launch, leading to administrator takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66011
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-27 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the magick command-line interface when invalid options are provided. Attackers can trigger memory exhaustion by repeatedly supplying malformed command-line arguments to consume system resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
1.8
CVE-2026-64529
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: crypto: qat - remove unused character device and IOCTLs The QAT driver exposes a character device (qat_adf_ctl) with IOCTLs for device configuration, start, stop, status query and enumeration. These IOCTLs are not part of any public uAPI header and have no known in-tree or out-of-tree users. Device lifecycle is already managed via sysfs. The ioctl interface also increases the attack surface and is the subject of a number of bug reports. Remove the character device, the IOCTL definitions, and the related data structures (adf_dev_status_info, adf_user_cfg_key_val, adf_user_cfg_section, adf_user_cfg_ctl_data). Drop the now-unused adf_cfg_user.h header and strip adf_ctl_drv.c down to the minimal module_init/module_exit hooks for workqueue, AER, and crypto/compression algorithm registration. Clean up leftover dead code that was only reachable from the removed IOCTL paths: adf_cfg_del_all(), adf_devmgr_verify_id(), adf_devmgr_get_num_dev(), adf_devmgr_get_dev_by_id(), adf_get_vf_real_id() and the unused ADF_CFG macros. Additionally, drop the entry associated to QAT IOCTLs in ioctl-number.rst.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-25
UPDATED
Date2026-07-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA