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

Comparison Overview

TenableTenable
VS
Palo Alto NetworksPalo Alto Networks
Tenable

Tenable

6100 Merriweather Drive, Columbia, MD, US, 21044

Last Update: 27/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.tenable.com
645/1000Poor

Tenable is the exposure management company, exposing and closing the cybersecurity gaps that erode business value, reputation and trust. The company’s AI-powered exposure management platform radically unifies security visibility, insight and action across the attack sur...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:2,355
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, California, US, 95054

Last Update: 16/06/2026

View Profile
720/1000Moderate

Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:18,620
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tenable

Tenable

-
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
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

-
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 Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Tenable has 9.09% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)

Palo Alto Networks has 647.66% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Tenable cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Palo Alto Networks 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...
Tenable

Tenable

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TEN1777263819
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TENLEV1766519861
🔒 Incident : Breach
DRI1593115102125
Palo Alto Networks

Palo Alto Networks

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PALHUAAMEMIC1781613039
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1780115030
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
PAL1775738158

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-48777
SUMMARY

FileBrowser Quantum is a free, self-hosted, web-based file manager. Versions prior to 1.3.2-stable, 1.4.0-beta and 1.4.1-beta are vulnerable to Path Traversal through the publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go which joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated. A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.3.3-stable and 1.4.2-beta.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47750
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the GLOBAL opcode handler. The issue was caused by missing validation when searching for newline-delimited fields. A crafted .ckpt file without the expected newline could cause the parser to use -1 as a copy length, resulting in immediate heap corruption. The attack requires the victim or application to load a .ckpt file from an untrusted source, such as a downloaded model from a model sharing site. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by following these instructions: do not load .ckpt checkpoint files from untrusted sources, and prefer trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47747
SUMMARY

stable-diffusion.cpp is a pure C/C++ library for running diffusion model (Stable Diffusion, Flux, Wan, Qwen Image, Z-Image, and more) inference. In versions prior to master-584-0a7ae07, the pickle .ckpt parser in src/model.cpp contained a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the BINUNICODE opcode handler. The issue was caused by sign confusion on the opcode length field. A crafted .ckpt file could trigger memcpy with a very large length derived from a negative signed value, causing immediate heap corruption. The issue has been resolved in version master-584-0a7ae07. If developers are unable to immediately update their applications they can work around this issue by only loading .ckpt checkpoint files from trusted sources and preferring trusted model sources and safer formats such as .safetensors where possible.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-46448
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Nova before 33.0.2, the server create API does not strip certain hint data. The resulting instance has no Placement allocation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-22313
SUMMARY

The device has a webserver that exposes a REST API authenticated with a token on the management network. By exploiting an OS command injection vulnerability an authenticated attacker can send arbitrary commands to the device that are executed with administrative permissions by the underlying operating system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-16
UPDATED
Date2026-06-16
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3