Comparison Overview

Tensilica

VS

AMD

Tensilica

2655 Seely Avenue, San Jose, CA, 95134, US
Last Update: 2025-05-05 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900

Strong

Tensilica was acquired by Cadence Design Systems, Inc., in 2013. Cadence is actively investing in the innovative Tensilica processor architecture, as well as hiring new engineers and marketing people. Please see www.cadence.com for more information

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 24
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

AMD

Last Update: 2024-08-12 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900

We care deeply about transforming lives with AMD technology to enrich our industry, our communities, and the world. Our mission is to build great products that accelerate next-generation computing experiences โ€“ the building blocks for the data center, artificial intelligence, PCs, gaming and embedded. Underpinning our mission is the AMD culture. We push the limits of innovation to solve the worldโ€™s most important challenges. We strive for execution excellence while being direct, humble, collaborative, and inclusive of diverse perspectives. AMD together we advance_

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 42,019
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tensilica.jpeg
Tensilica
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/AMD.jpeg
AMD
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Tensilica
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AMD
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tensilica in 2025.

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

AMD has 244.83% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History โ€” Tensilica (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tensilica cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” AMD (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AMD cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tensilica.jpeg
Tensilica
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/AMD.jpeg
AMD
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Improper signature verification in CPU ROM microcode patch loader
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: High Privilege Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Bootkit
Motivation: Persistent, undetectable control over systems
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Both Tensilica company and AMD company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

AMD company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Tensilica company has not reported any.

In the current year, AMD company has reported more cyber incidents than Tensilica company.

Neither AMD company nor Tensilica company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither AMD company nor Tensilica company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither AMD company nor Tensilica company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

AMD company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Tensilica company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Tensilica company nor AMD company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

AMD company employs more people globally than Tensilica company, reflecting its scale as a Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper Protection Against Voltage and Clock Glitches in FPGA devices, could allow an attacker with physical access to undervolt the platform resulting in a loss of confidentiality.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
Description

Malicious code was inserted into the Nx (build system) package and several related plugins. The tampered package was published to the npm software registry, via a supply-chain attack. Affected versions contain code that scans the file system, collects credentials, and posts them to GitHub as a repo under user's accounts.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Flag Forge is a Capture The Flag (CTF) platform. In versions from 2.1.0 to before 2.3.0, the API endpoint GET /api/problems/:id returns challenge hints in plaintext within the question object, regardless of whether the user has unlocked them via point deduction. Users can view all hints for free, undermining the business logic of the platform and reducing the integrity of the challenge system. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Flag Forge is a Capture The Flag (CTF) platform. In version 2.1.0, the /api/admin/assign-badge endpoint lacks proper access control, allowing any authenticated user to assign high-privilege badges (e.g., Staff) to themselves. This could lead to privilege escalation and impersonation of administrative roles. This issue has been patched in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

parse is a package designed to parse JavaScript SDK. A Prototype Pollution vulnerability in the SingleInstanceStateController.initializeState function of parse version 5.3.0 and before allows attackers to inject properties on Object.prototype via supplying a crafted payload, causing denial of service (DoS) as the minimum consequence.