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

Comparison Overview

TwitterTwitter
VS
WoltWolt
Twitter

Twitter

1355 Market St, San Francisco, 94103, US

Last Update: 14/04/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://twitter.com
188/1000Critical

Life’s not about a job, it’s about purpose. We believe real change starts with conversation. Here, your voice matters. Come as you are and together we’ll do what’s right (not what’s easy) to serve the public conversation.

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:1,055
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
4
Wolt

Wolt

Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 21, Helsinki, Uusimaa, FI, 00100

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://careers.wolt.com/en
779/1000Fair

Wolt is a Helsinki-based technology company with a mission to bring joy, simplicity and earnings to the neighborhoods of the world. Wolt develops a local commerce platform that connects people looking to order food, groceries, and other goods with people interested in s...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,398
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Twitter

Twitter

-
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
Wolt

Wolt

-
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)

Twitter has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wolt in 2026.

Incidents

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

Twitter cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Wolt 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...
Twitter

Twitter

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HETTWI1776176874
🔒 Incident : Breach
TWI602040125
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TWI523082025
Wolt

Wolt

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1