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

Comparison Overview

SmartVaultSmartVault
VS
Expedia GroupExpedia Group
SmartVault

SmartVault

600 N Shepherd Dr, Houston, 77007, US

Last Update: 07/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.smartvault.com/
734/1000Moderate

SmartVault is the leading provider of a secure, cloud-based document management and client portal platform purpose-built for accounting and tax professionals. Founded in 2008, SmartVault helps firms streamline workflows, enhance client collaboration, and maintain the hi...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:73
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Expedia Group

Expedia Group

1111 Expedia Group Way W., Seattle, 98119, US

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
796/1000Fair

At Expedia Group (NASDAQ: EXPE), we believe travel is a force for good – it opens minds, builds connections, and bridges divides. We create transformative tech that enables unforgettable experiences for all travelers, everywhere. Our trusted family of brands are known a...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:21,768
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
SmartVault

SmartVault

-
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
Expedia Group

Expedia Group

-
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)

SmartVault has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Expedia Group in 2026.

Incidents

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

SmartVault cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Expedia Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Expedia Group 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...
SmartVault

SmartVault

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SMASIMCONAMADAT1775551328
Expedia Group

Expedia Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86564
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in DPDK lib/vhost. Missing length validation before reading command_data in the virtio-net control-queue handler can cause an out-of-bounds read and a host process crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-55250
SUMMARY

Maravel, a PHP framework oriented towards dependency injection, prior to version 10.74.0 has a high-severity Token Replay Vulnerability arising from a structural lifecycle mismatch between stateless token validation engines and high-performance relational caching layers. Any application with low cache memory that causes premature eviction to free up memory and applications running macropay-solutions/maravel-framework that utilize tymon/jwt-auth for API token authentication and blacklist management or any other package that does the same may be affected. This architectural risk might also impact native Laravel applications utilizing cache tags under specific volatile or eviction-capped environments. tymon/jwt-auth automatically probes for cache tag support. If found, it forcefully wraps 14-day token blacklist entries (jti) inside a relational tymon.jwt tag. In environments where the O(1) Atomic Lazy Eviction model is active — either natively inside Maravel-Framework v20.x or manually backported into v10.x via the explicit DI container singletons provided in PR #104 (App\Cache\TaggedCache and App\Cache\TagSet) — a strict global tracking ceiling (Container::TAGGED_CACHE_TTL_CAP_SECONDS) of 7,200 seconds (2 hours) is enforced to secure the system against memory index bloat. This ceiling forcefully truncates the 14-day blacklist lifespan down to a maximum of 2 hours, after which individual tracking keys naturally expire and disappear from the active cache window. Furthermore, because the optimized engine implements a generational version matrix to achieve O(1) flush speeds, any programmatic or manual invocation of a tag flush or reset (e.g., Cache::tags([...])->flush()) instantly bumps the internal atomic master version pointer. This shifts the computed cryptographic composite hash (sha1($this->tags->getNamespace())) for all overlapping components, rendering the entire existing index immediately unreachable. Consequently, through either natural 2-hour expiration or an intervening tag flush execution (like the cache naturally cleaning old values to free up memory), the invalidation state records are entirely wiped out. Because the tokens' physical cryptographic signatures remain structurally valid for up to 14 days, stolen, hijacked, or legitimately logged-out tokens are instantly and silently resurrected across the entire API gateway, leaving the application critically vulnerable to widespread Token Replay Attacks. Because this issue is caused by an upstream architectural assumption within the tymon/jwt-auth package rather than a core defect inside the framework, there is no direct framework version upgrade that can safely bypass this lifecycle collision without breaking business cache recycling bounds. Maravel version 10.74.0 introduced a way to backport the new fixed tagged cache from 20.x into 10.x by resolving TagSet and TaggedCache from DI, which is how this latent architectural lifecycle vulnerability was discovered. Users must apply the decoupled configuration workaround outlined below. As a workaround, make sure that cache memory size does not generate early natural evictions from cache to free up space, deleting blacklisted jwt ids before they expire. Applications must decouple flat authentication vectors from the relational tagging subsystem. This forces token identifiers to write directly to the primary cache keyspace as flat, un-tagged key-value pairs where they securely retain their unclipped 14-day lifecycle.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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-2026-53639
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, the `GET /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` and `PUT /api/v2/shop/payment-requests/{hash}` endpoints look up the payment request solely by the hash from the URL. No ownership check is performed against the authenticated customer or the underlying order. An attacker who obtains a payment request hash can read the payment request and, through the `payment` IRI in the response, recover the underlying order's `tokenValue` (which itself grants access to the full order, items, addresses, customer email, totals); and/or update the payment request payload (e.g. `target_path`, `after_path`). These fields are used by the front-end controller to redirect the user after the payment, so an attacker can flip them to an attacker-controlled URL and intercept the buyer. The hash is a UUID, so it has to be obtained out-of-band (logs, shared links, referrer headers, a co-located client), but once it is known no other credential is required, neither authentication nor knowledge of the order token. The creation endpoint `POST /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payment-requests` shares the same flaw: it resolves the target order solely from the `tokenValue` in the URL without verifying that the caller owns the order. The issue is fixed in versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6. As a workaround, add a query extension that filters the `GET` operation; decorate the `PUT` state provider, guard the `POST` creation endpoint with a command-bus middleware, and wire the services.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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-2026-53638
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Starting in version 2.0.0 and prior to version 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6, an authorization bypass vulnerability exists in the shop account API. The `PATCH /api/v2/shop/account/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}` endpoint, used by an authenticated shop customer to change the payment method of an order that has been placed but not yet paid (state `STATE_NEW`), does not validate that the chosen payment method is enabled for the order's channel. The equivalent checkout endpoint (`PATCH /api/v2/shop/orders/{tokenValue}/payments/{paymentId}`) correctly rejects out-of-channel payment methods with `HTTP 422`; the account endpoint silently accepts them and returns `HTTP 200`. An authenticated customer can therefore assign any globally enabled payment method to their own placed order, including methods that the store operator has explicitly excluded from that channel. The issue is fixed in versions: 2.0.18, 2.1.15, 2.2.6 and above. As a workaround, decorate the `Sylius\Bundle\ApiBundle\Changer\PaymentMethodChangerInterface` service in the application.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53637
SUMMARY

Sylius is an Open Source eCommerce Framework on Symfony. Versions 2.0.0 through 2.0.17, 2.1.0 through 2.1.14, and 2.2.0 through 2.2.5 contain an improper workflow enforcement vulnerability in the cart `FormComponent`. When an order is completed while its cart page remains open, the stale LiveComponent does not detect the order’s changed state and continues to permit cart actions, allowing an authenticated customer to modify or permanently delete an already completed order. Versions 2.0.18, 2.1.15, and 2.2.6 contain a patch. As a workaround, deployments can copy the patched `FormComponent` into the application's `src/` directory and override the `sylius_shop.twig.component.cart.form` service definition to use that class.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-08
UPDATED
Date2026-09-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8