Comparison Overview

Tencent

VS

Cisco

Tencent

Tencent Seafront Towers, Shenzhen, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.tencent.com/en-us/

Tencent is a world-leading internet and technology company that develops innovative products and services to improve the quality of life of people around the world. Founded in 1998 with its headquarters in Shenzhen, China, Tencent's guiding principle is to use technology for good. Our communication and social services connect more than one billion people around the world, helping them to keep in touch with friends and family, access transportation, pay for daily necessities, and even be entertained. Tencent also publishes some of the world's most popular video games and other high-quality digital content, enriching interactive entertainment experiences for people around the globe. Tencent also offers a range of services such as cloud computing, advertising, FinTech, and other enterprise services to support our clients' digital transformation and business growth. Tencent has been listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong since 2004.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 90,189
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
View Profile

Cisco

Tasman Way, San Jose, CA, US, 95134
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 600 and 649
http://www.cisco.com

Cisco is the worldwide technology leader that is revolutionizing the way organizations connect and protect in the AI era. For more than 40 years, Cisco has securely connected the world. With its industry leading AI-powered solutions and services, Cisco enables its customers, partners and communities to unlock innovation, enhance productivity and strengthen digital resilience. With purpose at its core, Cisco remains committed to creating a more connected and inclusive future for all.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 95,475
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
5

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tencent.jpeg
Tencent
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Tencent
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cisco
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tencent in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Cisco has 934.48% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Tencent (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tencent cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cisco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cisco cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tencent.jpeg
Tencent
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cisco.jpeg
Cisco
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Exploited Vulnerabilities (unspecified), Phishing/Social Engineering (likely), DDoS Attacks, Threatening Calls to Executives
Motivation: Financial Gain (ransomware proceeds, access sales)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Vulnerability Exploitation (Cisco ASA), Malware Implantation, Command Execution, Potential Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Remote Code Execution (RCE), Unauthenticated Access to VPN Endpoints, Crafted HTTP Requests
Motivation: Opportunistic Exploitation, Potential Data Theft, Malware Distribution
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Tencent company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cisco company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cisco company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Tencent company.

In the current year, Cisco company has reported more cyber incidents than Tencent company.

Cisco company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Tencent company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Cisco company and Tencent company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Cisco company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Tencent company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cisco company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Tencent company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cisco company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tencent company.

Cisco company employs more people globally than Tencent company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tencent nor Cisco holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References