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

Comparison Overview

Transim TechnologyTransim Technology
VS
Booking.comBooking.com
Transim Technology

Transim Technology

433 NW 4th Ave., Portland, Oregon, 97209, US

Last Update: 10/11/2025

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

Transim is the global leader in delivering innovative cloud application engineering solutions for online design support in the electronics industry. Leading semiconductor manufacturers leverage Transim's hosted design center solutions to add online design and applicati...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:8
Subsidiaries:50
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Booking.com

Booking.com

Oosterdokskade 163, Amsterdam, 1011 DL, NL

Last Update: 20/04/2026

View Profile
504/1000Critical

A career at Booking.com is all about the journey, helping you explore new challenges in a place where you can be your best self. With plenty of exciting twists, turns and opportunities along the way. We’ve always been pioneers, on a mission to shape the future of trav...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:16,202
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Transim Technology

Transim Technology

-
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
Booking.com

Booking.com

-
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 Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Transim Technology in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Booking.com has 288.35% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Transim Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Transim Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Booking.com (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Booking.com 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...
Transim Technology

Transim Technology

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Booking.com

Booking.com

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AGOBOO1776904233
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOO1776206403
🔒 Incident : Breach
BOO1776112063

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9