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

Comparison Overview

SynacorSynacor
VS
IGTIGT
Synacor

Synacor

505 Ellicott St, Buffalo, 14203, US

Last Update: 20/08/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.synacor.com
743/1000Moderate

Synacor is a cloud-based software and services company headquartered in Buffalo, New York with offices across the globe. We're known for serving global video, content, entertainment, internet and communications providers, device manufacturers, governments and enterprise...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:175
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
IGT

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.IGT.com
594/1000Very Poor

IGT is a leading global provider of gaming, digital and financial technology solutions, formed through the combination of International Game Technology PLC’s Gaming & Digital Business and Everi Holdings Inc. IGT’s offering spans gaming machines, game content and systems...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:10,303
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Synacor

Synacor

-
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
IGT

IGT

-
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)

Synacor has 90.48% 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 IGT in 2026.

Incidents

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

Synacor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

IGT 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...
Synacor

Synacor

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SYN1787208788
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CISSYN1774305072
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SYN1778473638
IGT

IGT

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2192021112025
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
IGT2502025112125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
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