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

Comparison Overview

Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbHUbisoft Blue Byte GmbH
VS
Epic GamesEpic Games
Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

Luise-Rainer-Straße 7, Düsseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, DE, 40235

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://bluebyte.ubisoft.com
752/1000Fair

With more than 30 years of experience, Ubisoft Blue Byte is one of the pioneers of the German games industry. At three sites in Düsseldorf, Mainz and Berlin the teams develop high-class gaming experiences. Ubisoft Düsseldorf and Ubisoft Mainz are leading the development...

NAICS:51126
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:124
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Epic Games

Epic Games

Cary, US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.epicgames.com/
718/1000Moderate

Founded in 1991, Epic Games is a leading interactive entertainment company and provider of 3D engine technology. Epic operates Fortnite, one of the world’s largest games with over 350 million accounts and 2.5 billion friend connections. Epic also develops Unreal Engine,...

NAICS:51126
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,940
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

-
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
Epic Games

Epic Games

-
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 Computer Games Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Computer Games Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Epic Games in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Epic Games (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Epic Games 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...
Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

Ubisoft Blue Byte GmbH

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Epic Games

Epic Games

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
EPI601061625
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
EPI32022123
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
EPI2054291023

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9