Comparison Overview

ThinkWare

VS

Baidu, Inc.

ThinkWare

4055 Executive Park Dr, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45241, US
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Accounting/Payroll/HR Software for the PEO/ASO Industry. Web based payroll system. Microsoft Partner specializing in Dynamics GP and Microsoft CRM. ThinkWare is the leading provider of PEO and ASO software solutions. Since 1994, ThinkWare has been providing software solutions for PEO and ASO companies of all size. No other PEO software company can claim the success and growth rate of ThinkWare. ThinkWare relies upon advanced technology, industry knowledge and experience, and a proven development partner organization to develop solutions specifically designed to handle the unique challenges faced by PEO and ASO companies today.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 51
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Baidu, Inc.

Baidu Campus,, Beijing, undefined, 100085, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-17

Baidu is a leading AI company with strong Internet foundation, driven by our mission to “make the complicated world simpler through technology”. Founded in 2000 as a search engine platform, we were an early adopter of artificial intelligence in 2010. Since then, we have established a full AI stack, from deep learning frameworks to models and applications, with industry-leading self-developed technology at every level. Over the past two decades, we have built a diversified portfolio of products and services, spanning an ecosystem of hundreds of millions of users, millions of developers, and hundreds of thousands of enterprises. We have now integrated our leading AI capabilities into our offerings, driving innovative use cases. Join us to shape the future of AI and technology. For media inquiries, contact us at [email protected]. For career opportunities, visit https://talent.baidu.com/static/index.html

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 25,945
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thinkware.jpeg
ThinkWare
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/baidu-inc.jpeg
Baidu, Inc.
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
ThinkWare
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Baidu, Inc.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

ThinkWare has 75.44% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baidu, Inc. in 2025.

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

ThinkWare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Baidu, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baidu, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/thinkware.jpeg
ThinkWare
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Physical Access, Network Access
Motivation: Data Theft, Impersonation, Ransomware Deployment
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baidu-inc.jpeg
Baidu, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

ThinkWare company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Baidu, Inc. company has not reported any.

In the current year, ThinkWare company has reported more cyber incidents than Baidu, Inc. company.

Neither Baidu, Inc. company nor ThinkWare company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Baidu, Inc. company nor ThinkWare company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Baidu, Inc. company nor ThinkWare company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

ThinkWare company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Baidu, Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Baidu, Inc. company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ThinkWare company.

Baidu, Inc. company employs more people globally than ThinkWare company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither ThinkWare nor Baidu, Inc. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Zerobyte is a backup automation tool Zerobyte versions prior to 0.18.5 and 0.19.0 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where authentication middleware is not properly applied to API endpoints. This results in certain API endpoints being accessible without valid session credentials. This is dangerous for those who have exposed Zerobyte to be used outside of their internal network. A fix has been applied in both version 0.19.0 and 0.18.5. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict network access to the Zerobyte instance to trusted networks only using firewall rules or network segmentation. This is only a temporary mitigation; upgrading is strongly recommended.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Open Source Point of Sale (opensourcepos) is a web based point of sale application written in PHP using CodeIgniter framework. Starting in version 3.4.0 and prior to version 3.4.2, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the application's filter configuration. The CSRF protection mechanism was **explicitly disabled**, allowing the application to process state-changing requests (POST) without verifying a valid CSRF token. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by hosting a malicious web page. If a logged-in administrator visits this page, their browser is forced to send unauthorized requests to the application. A successful exploit allows the attacker to silently create a new Administrator account with full privileges, leading to a complete takeover of the system and loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The vulnerability has been patched in version 3.4.2. The fix re-enables the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` and resolves associated AJAX race conditions by adjusting token regeneration settings. As a workaround, administrators can manually re-enable the CSRF filter in `app/Config/Filters.php` by uncommenting the protection line. However, this is not recommended without applying the full patch, as it may cause functionality breakage in the Sales module due to token synchronization issues.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Model Context Protocol (MCP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious MCP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered automatically without any user interaction besides opening the project in the IDE. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Zed, a code editor, has an aribtrary code execution vulnerability in versions prior to 0.218.2-pre. The Zed IDE loads Language Server Protocol (LSP) configurations from the `settings.json` file located within a project’s `.zed` subdirectory. A malicious LSP configuration can contain arbitrary shell commands that run on the host system with the privileges of the user running the IDE. This can be triggered when a user opens project file for which there is an LSP entry. A concerted effort by an attacker to seed a project settings file (`./zed/settings.json`) with malicious language server configurations could result in arbitrary code execution with the user's privileges if the user opens the project in Zed without reviewing the contents. Version 0.218.2-pre fixes the issue by implementing worktree trust mechanism. As a workaround, users should carefully review the contents of project settings files (`./zed/settings.json`) before opening new projects in Zed.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Storybook is a frontend workshop for building user interface components and pages in isolation. A vulnerability present starting in versions 7.0.0 and prior to versions 7.6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, and 10.1.10 relates to Storybook’s handling of environment variables defined in a `.env` file, which could, in specific circumstances, lead to those variables being unexpectedly bundled into the artifacts created by the `storybook build` command. When a built Storybook is published to the web, the bundle’s source is viewable, thus potentially exposing those variables to anyone with access. For a project to potentially be vulnerable to this issue, it must build the Storybook (i.e. run `storybook build` directly or indirectly) in a directory that contains a `.env` file (including variants like `.env.local`) and publish the built Storybook to the web. Storybooks built without a `.env` file at build time are not affected, including common CI-based builds where secrets are provided via platform environment variables rather than `.env` files. Storybook runtime environments (i.e. `storybook dev`) are not affected. Deployed applications that share a repo with your Storybook are not affected. Users should upgrade their Storybook—on both their local machines and CI environment—to version .6.21, 8.6.15, 9.1.17, or 10.1.10 as soon as possible. Maintainers additionally recommend that users audit for any sensitive secrets provided via `.env` files and rotate those keys. Some projects may have been relying on the undocumented behavior at the heart of this issue and will need to change how they reference environment variables after this update. If a project can no longer read necessary environmental variable values, either prefix the variables with `STORYBOOK_` or use the `env` property in Storybook’s configuration to manually specify values. In either case, do not include sensitive secrets as they will be included in the built bundle.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L