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

Comparison Overview

TechFlow SolutionsTechFlow Solutions
VS
Akamai TechnologiesAkamai Technologies
TechFlow Solutions

TechFlow Solutions

Khouribga, MA

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://techflow.solutions
755/1000Fair

TechFlow Solutions is a dynamic digital agency founded in 2019, specializing in empowering small to medium-sized businesses with innovative technology solutions. We offer a comprehensive suite of services, including web development, digital marketing, automation, and cu...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:19
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

8 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, US, 02142

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.akamai.com
732/1000Moderate

At Akamai, we make life better for billions of people, billions of times a day. Every day, billions of people around the world connect with their favorite brands to shop online, play the latest video games, log into mobile banking apps, learn remotely, share videos wi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,327
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TechFlow Solutions

TechFlow Solutions

-
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
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TechFlow Solutions in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Akamai Technologies has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - TechFlow Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TechFlow Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Akamai Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akamai Technologies 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...
TechFlow Solutions

TechFlow Solutions

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TEC401050724
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEC206050824
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TOLTELAKA1777389934
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AKA1776515140
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
UNIAKA1773995078

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-78147
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in ggml-org llama.cpp bec4772f6. The impacted element is the function deserialize_tensor of the file ggml/src/ggml-rpc/ggml-rpc.cpp of the component ggml-RPC Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument op/op_params results in deserialization. The attack may be initiated remotely. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2026-34159 (GHSA-j8rj-fmpv-wcxw, PR #20908), which only added a buffer==nullptr rejection in create_node() and does not validate op or op_params. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-78145
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in CTFd up to 3.8.4. The affected element is the function _is_safe_url of the file CTFd/utils/validators/__init__.py. Such manipulation of the argument Next leads to open redirect. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 5d8515842fd1ab2c3a9f2dde9ffca907aa334ea9. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78144
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /boarders.php of the component Boarder Management Module. Such manipulation of the argument ID leads to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78143
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file residents.php of the component Resident Search Functionality. This manipulation of the argument Search causes sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-78142
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /archived_records.php of the component Restore/Delete. The manipulation of the argument resident_id results in authorization bypass. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8