Comparison Overview

Social Concepts

VS

Technolink

Social Concepts

undefined, undefined, undefined, 94063, US
Last Update: 2025-11-26
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://socialconcepts.com

Social Concepts, Inc. was founded in 2006 with the mission of connecting people on the Internet. We're a team of seasoned Internet start-up professionals based in Redwood City, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley. With over 17 million registered users, fubar is the first online bar and happy hour (fubar.com)

NAICS: None
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 14
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

Technolink

Fuzuli str 49, Baku, AZ
Last Update: 2025-11-29
Between 800 and 849
http://www.technolink.az

Technolink is the IT company in Azerbaijan Market. Official distributor of Q-matic company. Helping to Financial, Heath. Retail and Government (Public) sector to solve the problem with big Q lines. Giving CFM solution which is useful for the future business and marketing activities with customer. With the services by Technolin and Q-Matic our customers can serve their customer at the high level and more professionally.

NAICS: 51125
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 41
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/technolink.jpeg
Technolink
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Social Concepts
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Technolink
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Computer Networking Products Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Social Concepts in 2025.

Incidents vs Computer Networking Products Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Technolink in 2025.

Incident History — Social Concepts (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Social Concepts cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Technolink (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Technolink cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/social-concepts.jpeg
Social Concepts
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/technolink.jpeg
Technolink
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Technolink company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Social Concepts company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Technolink company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Social Concepts company.

In the current year, Technolink company and Social Concepts company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Technolink company nor Social Concepts company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Technolink company nor Social Concepts company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Technolink company nor Social Concepts company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Social Concepts company nor Technolink company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Social Concepts company nor Technolink company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Technolink company employs more people globally than Social Concepts company, reflecting its scale as a Computer Networking Products.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Social Concepts nor Technolink holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
References
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
References
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References
Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.

Published
Date
2025-11-27
Updated
Date
2025-11-27
References