Comparison Overview

Veriff

VS

Wolt

Veriff

110 Wall St, New York, US, 10005
Last Update: 2026-01-21
Between 650 and 699

Veriff is the preferred identity verification partner for the world’s biggest and best digital companies, including pioneers in fintech, crypto, gaming and the mobility sectors. We provide advanced technology, deep insights and expertise from our foundation in digital-first Estonia and honed over decades in leading the digital identity revolution.The partner of choice for businesses who need to rapidly and effortlessly verify online users from anywhere in the world, Veriff delivers the widest possible identity document coverage. By supporting government issued IDs from more than 230 countries and territories and with our intelligent decision engine which analyzes thousands of technological and behavioral variables Veriff enables trust from the first hello. We’re a global company with hubs in Europe, the US, and LatAm. We have a robust backing and funding from investors including Accel, Alkeon, IVP, Tiger Capital and Y Combinator, we’re dedicated to helping businesses and individuals build a safer and more secure world. To learn more, visit veriff.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 507
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Wolt

Pohjoinen Rautatiekatu 21, Helsinki, Uusimaa, FI, 00100
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

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 selling and delivering them. Wolt was founded in 2014 and joined forces with DoorDash (NASDAQ: DASH) in 2022. Together, we operate in more than 30 countries today.

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

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/veriff.jpeg
Veriff
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wolt-oy.jpeg
Wolt
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Veriff
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Wolt
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Veriff in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Wolt in 2026.

Incident History — Veriff (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Veriff cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Wolt cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/veriff.jpeg
Veriff
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-Party Compromise
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wolt-oy.jpeg
Wolt
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Wolt company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Veriff company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Veriff company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Wolt company has not reported any.

In the current year, Wolt company and Veriff company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Wolt company nor Veriff company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Veriff company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Wolt company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Wolt company nor Veriff company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Veriff company nor Wolt company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Veriff company nor Wolt company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Wolt company employs more people globally than Veriff company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Veriff nor Wolt holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N