Comparison Overview

Versonix Corporation

VS

Grab

Versonix Corporation

1175 Saratoga Ave, San Jose, California, 95129, US
Last Update: 2025-05-03 (UTC)
Between 800 and 900
http://www.versonix.com

Strong

Powering reservations for over 20 million passengers and 100 ships around the world each year, Versonix Seaware lets cruise lines realize maximum efficiency through sales, marketing and built-in revenue and yield management capabilities. Major cruise lines use Seaware's state-of-the-art reservation platform to achieve consistent and successful results. The only true business rules-based system in the industry, Seaware uses its business rules engine to adapt and support specific business goals, as well as ever-changing market conditions. Seaware serves as a common point for all distribution channels including OTA, GDS, B2B, B2C and contact center.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 43
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Grab

3 Media Close, Singapore, Singapore, 138498, SG
Last Update: 2025-03-05 (UTC)

Strong

Between 800 and 900
https://grab.careers

Grab is Southeast Asia’s leading superapp, offering a suite of services consisting of deliveries, mobility, financial services, enterprise and others. Grabbers come from all over the world, and we are united by a common mission: to drive Southeast Asia forward by creating economic empowerment for everyone. At Grab, every Grabber is guided by The Grab Way, which explains our mission and the operating principles on how we can achieve it together. We call these principles the 4Hs: Heart We work together as OneGrab to serve communities in Southeast Asia Hunger We work to understand ground truths and drive improvements, big and small Honour We keep our word and steward our resources wisely to build and sustain trust Humility We are a constant work-in-progress, and we never stop learning to get better

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 49,204
Subsidiaries: 5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/versonix-corporation.jpeg
Versonix Corporation
—
ISO 27001
Not verified
—
SOC 2
Not verified
—
GDPR
No public badge
—
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grabapp.jpeg
Grab
—
ISO 27001
Not verified
—
SOC 2
Not verified
—
GDPR
No public badge
—
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Versonix Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Grab
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Versonix Corporation in 2025.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grab in 2025.

Incident History — Versonix Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Versonix Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Grab cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/versonix-corporation.jpeg
Versonix Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/grabapp.jpeg
Grab
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Versonix Corporation company and Grab company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Grab company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Versonix Corporation company.

In the current year, Grab company and Versonix Corporation company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Grab company nor Versonix Corporation company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Grab company nor Versonix Corporation company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Grab company nor Versonix Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Versonix Corporation company nor Grab company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Grab company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Versonix Corporation company.

Grab company employs more people globally than Versonix Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in LaChatterie Verger up to 1.2.10. This impacts the function redirectToAuthorization of the file /src/main/services/mcp/oauth/provider.ts. The manipulation of the argument URL results in deserialization. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: 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
References
Description

A vulnerability has been found in SeriaWei ZKEACMS up to 4.3. This affects the function Delete of the file src/ZKEACMS.Redirection/Controllers/UrlRedirectionController.cs of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation leads to improper authorization. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: jfs: fix invalid free of JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap in diUnmount syzbot found an invalid-free in diUnmount: BUG: KASAN: double-free in slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] BUG: KASAN: double-free in __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 Free of addr ffff88806f410000 by task syz-executor131/3632 CPU: 0 PID: 3632 Comm: syz-executor131 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc7-syzkaller-00012-gca57f02295f1 #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/26/2022 Call Trace: <TASK> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x1b1/0x28e lib/dump_stack.c:106 print_address_description+0x74/0x340 mm/kasan/report.c:284 print_report+0x107/0x1f0 mm/kasan/report.c:395 kasan_report_invalid_free+0xac/0xd0 mm/kasan/report.c:460 ____kasan_slab_free+0xfb/0x120 kasan_slab_free include/linux/kasan.h:177 [inline] slab_free_hook mm/slub.c:1724 [inline] slab_free_freelist_hook+0x12e/0x1a0 mm/slub.c:1750 slab_free mm/slub.c:3661 [inline] __kmem_cache_free+0x71/0x110 mm/slub.c:3674 diUnmount+0xef/0x100 fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c:195 jfs_umount+0x108/0x370 fs/jfs/jfs_umount.c:63 jfs_put_super+0x86/0x190 fs/jfs/super.c:194 generic_shutdown_super+0x130/0x310 fs/super.c:492 kill_block_super+0x79/0xd0 fs/super.c:1428 deactivate_locked_super+0xa7/0xf0 fs/super.c:332 cleanup_mnt+0x494/0x520 fs/namespace.c:1186 task_work_run+0x243/0x300 kernel/task_work.c:179 exit_task_work include/linux/task_work.h:38 [inline] do_exit+0x664/0x2070 kernel/exit.c:820 do_group_exit+0x1fd/0x2b0 kernel/exit.c:950 __do_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:961 [inline] __se_sys_exit_group kernel/exit.c:959 [inline] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x3b/0x40 kernel/exit.c:959 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd [...] JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap is not setting to NULL after free in diUnmount. If jfs_remount() free JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap but then failed at diMount(). JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap will be freed once again. Fix this problem by setting JFS_IP(ipimap)->i_imap to NULL after free.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: scsi: qla2xxx: Fix deletion race condition System crash when using debug kernel due to link list corruption. The cause of the link list corruption is due to session deletion was allowed to queue up twice. Here's the internal trace that show the same port was allowed to double queue for deletion on different cpu. 20808683956 015 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 20808683957 027 qla2xxx [0000:13:00.1]-e801:4: Scheduling sess ffff93ebf9306800 for deletion 50:06:0e:80:12:48:ff:50 fc4_type 1 Move the clearing/setting of deleted flag lock.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References
Description

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/ksm: fix race with VMA iteration and mm_struct teardown exit_mmap() will tear down the VMAs and maple tree with the mmap_lock held in write mode. Ensure that the maple tree is still valid by checking ksm_test_exit() after taking the mmap_lock in read mode, but before the for_each_vma() iterator dereferences a destroyed maple tree. Since the maple tree is destroyed, the flags telling lockdep to check an external lock has been cleared. Skip the for_each_vma() iterator to avoid dereferencing a maple tree without the external lock flag, which would create a lockdep warning.

Published
Date
2025-10-04
Updated
Date
2025-10-04
References