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

Comparison Overview

STRUKTURASTRUKTURA
VS
UpworkUpwork
STRUKTURA

STRUKTURA

Kyiv, UA

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://struktura.io/
600/1000Poor

We invent, develop, launch, promote and maintain multiple B2C SaaS & Mobile Apps.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:104
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Upwork

Upwork

475 Brannan St, San Francisco, 94107, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.upwork.com/
828/1000Good

Upwork is the world’s work marketplace that connects businesses with independent talent from across the globe. We serve everyone from one-person startups to large, Fortune 100 enterprises with a powerful, trust-driven platform that enables companies and talent to work t...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:169,561
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
STRUKTURA

STRUKTURA

-
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
Upwork

Upwork

-
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)

STRUKTURA has 88.68% more 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 Upwork in 2026.

Incidents

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

STRUKTURA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Upwork 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...
STRUKTURA

STRUKTURA

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RETMSPMUKUMO1770688652
🔒 Incident : Breach
STR1770725180
Upwork

Upwork

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA