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

Comparison Overview

Trust + SafetyTrust + Safety
VS
StartekStartek
Trust + Safety

Trust + Safety

New Braunfels, US

Last Update: 24/04/2026

View Profile

Platforms and businesses are increasingly exposed to a number of serious trust and safety risks. A robust moderation system powered by a vigilant workforce is the only solution to protecting users everywhere. At TaskUs, we understand the growing need for Trust + Safety...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Startek

Startek

Denver, 80237, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.startek.com
761/1000Fair

A global customer experience (CX) management solutions provider, Startek® delivers best-in-class omnichannel CX, digital transformation and enterprise tech services for leading brands, from Fortune 500s to fast-growing startups. Our innovation and expertise ensure CX ex...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:21,110
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Trust + Safety

Trust + Safety

-
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
Startek

Startek

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Trust + Safety in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Startek in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Trust + Safety (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Trust + Safety cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Startek 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...
Trust + Safety

Trust + Safety

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Startek

Startek

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
STA909072825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
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:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9