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

Comparison Overview

Storm ReplyStorm Reply
VS
AlmavivA ExperienceAlmavivA Experience
Storm Reply

Storm Reply

Via Cardinal Massaia 83, Turin, 00147, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
760/1000Fair

Storm Reply is a global AWS Premier Consulting Partner and a specialist for professional cloud computing services in the Reply network. Storm Reply holds comprehensive technical expertise on the most relevant enablers of digital transformation including Cloud, Big Data...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:434
Subsidiaries:124
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

Avenida Rebouças 2728, São Paulo, 05402-500, BR

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

Líder em transformação digital nos mercados de Customer Experience e Debt Collection na América Latina. Combinamos tecnologia, inteligência e excelência operacional para entregar soluções completas que antecipam as necessidades dos nossos Clientes. São mais de 530 mil...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:22,366
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Storm Reply

Storm Reply

-
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
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Storm Reply in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AlmavivA Experience in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Storm Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Storm Reply 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 - AlmavivA Experience (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AlmavivA Experience cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Storm Reply

Storm Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
AlmavivA Experience

AlmavivA Experience

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-77684
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth Classic Hands-Free Profile HF role in subsys/bluetooth/host/classic/hfp_hf.c does not release the AT command buffers that are still queued on hf->tx_pending when the RFCOMM DLC goes down. hfp_hf_disconnected() only cancelled the work items and cleared hf->acl, and no other code path ever dequeues those buffers, so each one is permanently lost from the fixed hf_pool (CONFIG_BT_MAX_CONN + 1 buffers, i.e. two in the default configuration). The same function also left BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_CONNECTED set, and hfp_hf_create() wiped the object with memset() as soon as hf->acl was NULL, without checking whether hf->work, hf->slc_work or hf->deferred_work was still pending or running. The remote Audio Gateway peer controls the trigger end to end and needs no application involvement: an unsolicited +BCS: 1 response makes bcs_handle() call bt_hfp_hf_select_codec() and queue an AT+BCS buffer, which cannot be transmitted while BT_HFP_HF_FLAG_RX_ONGOING is set, and an immediately following RFCOMM DISC strands that buffer. Repeating the connect / +BCS / disconnect cycle a couple of times empties hf_pool for good. With the pool exhausted, HFP command sending fails permanently, and because hfp_hf_send_cmd() allocates with K_FOREVER (bt_rfcomm_create_pdu() → bt_conn_create_pdu()) from the Bluetooth RX context — where that timeout is not downgraded to K_NO_WAIT — one further +BCS from the peer parks the Bluetooth RX thread inside net_buf_alloc() with no possible waker, halting all HCI event processing until the device is rebooted. Separately, reusing the HF slot while a work handler was still queued or running allowed memset() to wipe live k_work items out from under the system workqueue, corrupting shared kernel workqueue state. Exploitation requires an established HFP session (for SSP devices L2CAP enforces authentication before the RFCOMM channel is reachable) and a build with CONFIG_BT_HFP_HF enabled.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-19
UPDATED
Date2026-10-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-19595
SUMMARY

The user-mode syscall verifier z_vrfy_rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() in subsys/rtio/rtio_syscalls.c validated its two output parameters, buff and buff_len, with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_READ() rather than K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE(). Both are pure out-parameters: z_impl_rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() stores the mempool buffer address and its length through them. The distinction is enforced by every architecture validator — arch_buffer_validate() on RISC-V PMP explicitly accepts the global __rom_region/__rodata_region for reads only, and the ARM MPU validators accept P_RO_U_RO and P_RW_U_RO regions for reads only — so a read-validated pointer is not necessarily writable by the calling thread. An unprivileged user-mode thread that has been granted access to an RTIO context (rtio_access_grant()) can invoke the rtio_cqe_get_mempool_buffer() syscall with buff/buff_len pointing at memory it may read but not write, and with a completion-queue entry whose flags field it fully controls (only RTIO_CQE_FLAG_MEMPOOL_BUFFER in flags[7:0] is required; flags[19:8] and flags[31:20] supply the block index and count). The kernel then performs a pointer-sized and a 4-byte store through those addresses while running in supervisor mode. Reaching the store requires CONFIG_USERSPACE together with CONFIG_RTIO_SYS_MEM_BLOCKS, the configuration behind RTIO_DEFINE_WITH_MEMPOOL; without the latter the implementation returns -ENOTSUP and writes nothing. Two outcomes follow. If the target lies in a memory-domain partition declared K_MEM_PARTITION_P_RW_U_RO (privileged read-write, user read-only), the kernel-mode store succeeds and deposits partly attacker-chosen values into memory the memory domain had marked read-only for that thread, bypassing the partition's write protection. If the target lies in globally readable but unwritable memory such as .text/.rodata in flash, the store faults in kernel mode; the fault is delivered to z_fatal_error() and the default k_sys_fatal_error_handler() halts or reboots the device, giving an unprivileged thread a reliable full denial of service. The read-permission check does bound the damage: the address must still be readable by the calling thread, so kernel-private memory cannot be targeted and no confidential data is disclosed. The fix replaces both checks with K_SYSCALL_MEMORY_WRITE(), so a thread lacking write permission is terminated by K_OOPS before the implementation runs; the cqe argument correctly remains read-validated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-19
UPDATED
Date2026-10-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19178
SUMMARY

IBM Storage TS4500 Library 1.1.1.6 through 1.12.0.3 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to gain unauthorized administrative privileges due to a race condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-19
UPDATED
Date2026-10-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-112991
SUMMARY

The html_to_markdown expansion module in MISP Modules contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its is_safe_url() URL validation function. The BLOCKED_RANGES list used to reject unsafe destination addresses was incomplete, omitting several critical IP address ranges. Specifically, the following ranges were not blocked: 0.0.0.0/8 (unspecified, which routes to loopback on Linux), 100.64.0.0/10 (carrier-grade NAT per RFC 6598), ::/128 (IPv6 unspecified), fc00::/7 (IPv6 Unique Local Addresses), and fe80::/10 (IPv6 link-local). The existing list only covered IPv4 loopback (127.0.0.0/8), RFC 1918 private ranges, IPv4 link-local (169.254.0.0/16), and IPv6 loopback (::1/128). An authenticated user with the ability to create or modify MISP attributes that trigger the html_to_markdown expansion module could supply URLs pointing to these unblocked internal address ranges. Because the module fetches the URL server-side to convert HTML content to Markdown, the request is made from the MISP server's network context. This allows an attacker to probe and read responses from internal services, carrier-grade NAT infrastructure, or link-local endpoints that would otherwise be unreachable from external networks. IPv4-mapped IPv6 forms (e.g., [::ffff:0.0.0.0]) also bypassed the existing checks. The security impact is primarily confidentiality: an attacker can read data served by internal services reachable from the MISP server. The MISP instance itself is not compromised, but it is abused as a proxy to access otherwise restricted network resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-19
UPDATED
Date2026-10-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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-2026-112372
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in H3C Magic NX15 V100R017. This affects the function importprofile of the file /api/upload. This manipulation of the argument fileName causes path traversal. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-19
UPDATED
Date2026-10-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.6)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:P/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3