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

Comparison Overview

Travis CITravis CI
VS
Akamai TechnologiesAkamai Technologies
Travis CI

Travis CI

Rigaer Str. 8, Berlin, 10247, DE

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://travis-ci.com
751/1000Fair

Travis CI empowers people to build and ship great software. As a leading provider of hosted CI, Travis CI has been helping build and test open source and private projects since 2011. With over 30 languages supported, they help projects and teams of all sizes.

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

8 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, US, 02142

Last Update: 28/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.akamai.com
732/1000Moderate

At Akamai, we make life better for billions of people, billions of times a day. Every day, billions of people around the world connect with their favorite brands to shop online, play the latest video games, log into mobile banking apps, learn remotely, share videos wi...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:10,327
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Travis CI

Travis CI

-
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
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

-
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 Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Travis CI in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Technology, Information and Internet Industry Avg (This Year)

Akamai Technologies has 94.17% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Travis CI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Travis CI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Akamai Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Akamai Technologies 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...
Travis CI

Travis CI

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
TRA222827123
Akamai Technologies

Akamai Technologies

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TOLTELAKA1777389934
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AKA1776515140
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
UNIAKA1773995078

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA