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
SnowflakeSnowflake
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
Snowflake

Snowflake

The Cloud, US

Last Update: 06/10/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.snowflake.com
100/1000Critical

**Snowflake is proud to be the Official Data Collaboration Provider for LA28 and Team USA.** Snowflake delivers the AI Data Cloud — a global network where thousands of organizations mobilize data with near-unlimited scale, concurrency, and performance. Inside the AI Da...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,567
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
11
Known data breaches
21
Attack type number
4

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
Snowflake

Snowflake

-
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)

Snowflake has 989.11% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - Snowflake (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Snowflake 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
Snowflake

Snowflake

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SNOASO1791282235
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SNOVERMICATTDLI1790382515
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OPESNOSALHUG1789396374

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8