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

Comparison Overview

Soft-PakSoft-Pak
VS
MetaMeta
Soft-Pak

Soft-Pak

201 W Main St, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37408, US

Last Update: 07/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://soft-pak.com/
752/1000Fair

Soft-Pak is a complete operational software solution that delivers the power and flexibility to succeed in today’s competitive waste hauling marketplace.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:33
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Meta

Meta

1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, 94025, US

Last Update: 22/10/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.metacareers.com/
629/1000Poor

Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Our technologies help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. When Facebook launched in 2004, it changed the way people connect. Apps like Messenger, In...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:164,515
Subsidiaries:21
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
14
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Soft-Pak

Soft-Pak

-
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
Meta

Meta

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Soft-Pak in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Meta has 880.39% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Soft-Pak (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Soft-Pak 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 - Meta (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Meta 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...
Soft-Pak

Soft-Pak

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Meta

Meta

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET1791469897
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
GOOMICTREMET1788168069
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
METAUS1790319227

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-113705
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in a2aproject a2a-rs up to 0.4.3. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file a2a-server/src/error.rs. Executing a manipulation can lead to information exposure through error message. The attack can be executed remotely. This patch is called 713b943af94ab2d521d483b841618b97a2e78a4d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-9825
SUMMARY

IBM Cyber Fraud 1.0.0 through 1.0.2 has a missing secure attribute allowing sensitive cookies to be transmitted over unencrypted connections, potentially enabling an attacker to intercept session data through network-based attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-94402
SUMMARY

IBM Carbon Charts 0.4.0 through 1.27.19 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The MeterChart component's Title.truncateTitle() function re-inserts a substring of user-supplied label text into the DOM via an unsanitized innerHTML write when the title exceeds the available container width. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93888
SUMMARY

IBM Sterling Connect Direct for Unix 6.4.0.0 through 6.4.0.6 and 6.3.0.0 through 6.3.0.7 apnotify utility is vulnerable to a code injection due to insufficient validation of user input.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93744
SUMMARY

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9