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

Comparison Overview

Triplesense ReplyTriplesense Reply
VS
CimpressCimpress
Triplesense Reply

Triplesense Reply

Uhlandstraße 2, Frankfurt am Main, 60314, DE

Last Update: 15/03/2026

View Profile
766/1000Fair

We are Triplesense Reply. Humanizing Digital is our passion. We consistently put people in the center of all our actions. We shape digital life according to human needs and desires. So it's not user-centricity, but people-centricity that sets us apart and makes us w...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:49
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Cimpress

Cimpress

Xerox Technology Park, Dundalk, A91 H9N9, IE

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://cimpress.com/
774/1000Fair

Cimpress plc (Nasdaq: CMPR) invests in and builds customer-focused, entrepreneurial, mass-customization businesses for the long term. Mass customization is a competitive strategy which seeks to produce goods and services to meet individual customer needs with near mass ...

NAICS:513
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:12,239
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Triplesense Reply

Triplesense Reply

-
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
Cimpress

Cimpress

-
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 Triplesense Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Cimpress in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Triplesense Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Triplesense Reply cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Cimpress cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Triplesense Reply

Triplesense Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Cimpress

Cimpress

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8