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

Comparison Overview

The Spamhaus ProjectThe Spamhaus Project
VS
CrowdStrikeCrowdStrike
The Spamhaus Project

The Spamhaus Project

N/A

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.spamhaus.org
730/1000Moderate

Spamhaus strengthens trust and safety for the Internet. Advocating for change through sharing reliable intelligence and expertise. As the authority on IP and domain reputation data, we are trusted across the industry because of its strong ethics, impartiality, and quali...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:2
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike

Remote, US

Last Update: 03/07/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.crowdstrike.com
578/1000Very Poor

CrowdStrike (Nasdaq: CRWD), a global cybersecurity leader, has redefined modern security with the world’s most advanced cloud-native platform for protecting critical areas of enterprise risk — endpoints and cloud workloads, identity and data. Powered by the CrowdStrike...

NAICS:541514
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11,601
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
The Spamhaus Project

The Spamhaus Project

-
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
CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike

-
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)

The Spamhaus Project has 7.41% 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)

CrowdStrike has 482.52% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - The Spamhaus Project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Spamhaus Project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

CrowdStrike 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...
The Spamhaus Project

The Spamhaus Project

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
THEGOO1774470489
CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MICSENKASESECRO1782073479
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MARBYBCRO1777746530
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CRO1776846395

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8