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

Comparison Overview

TP-LinkTP-Link
VS
Samsung ElectronicsSamsung Electronics
TP-Link

TP-Link

Irvine, US

Last Update: 11/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.tp-link.com
657/1000Weak

Headquartered in the United States, TP-Link is a global provider of reliable networking devices and smart home products, consistently ranked as the world’s top provider of Wi-Fi devices. The company is committed to delivering innovative products that enhance people’s li...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:8,511
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

129 Samsung-ro, Suwon-Si, 443-742, KR

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.samsung.com
753/1000Fair

Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medica...

NAICS:334
NAICS Definition:Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
Employees:167,492
Subsidiaries:37
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
5

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TP-Link

TP-Link

-
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
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

-
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 Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

TP-Link has 180.37% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computers and Electronics Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

Samsung Electronics has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - TP-Link (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TP-Link cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Samsung Electronics (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Samsung Electronics 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...
TP-Link

TP-Link

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TP-TEK1778524447
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TP-1776716855
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NAT1773851315
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
MERCHESAMCOMFOXATTFORTOY1781713752
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SAM5932959110525
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
DIM4992449100425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56082
SUMMARY

Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56081
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56080
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/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
1.2
CVE-2026-56079
SUMMARY

Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56073
SUMMARY

Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-19
UPDATED
Date2026-06-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
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:L/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
5.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9