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

Comparison Overview

Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社
VS
[24]7.ai[24]7.ai
Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

N/A

Last Update: 10/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.workday.com/jp
752/1000Fair

「未来を創る企業は人事を、ビジネスの真ん中に置く。」 Workdayは、人事戦略と経営戦略を連携させ、経営に貢献する強い人事部門の実現を支援します。AIを組み込んだ人事・財務を統合するクラウドプラットフォームを通じて、HRモダナイゼーションを推進し、人事を経営の推進力へと進化させます。 ビジネス環境が急速に変化する今、求められるのは分断された制度やシステムではなく、リアルタイムなデータに基づく意思決定です。 Workdayは、次のような価値を提供しています。 ・人財管理/財務管理を統合 ・データをリアルタイムで可視化し、迅速な意...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
[24]7.ai

[24]7.ai

2105 S Bascom Ave, Campbell, 95008, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.247.ai/
778/1000Fair

[24]7.ai™ customer engagement solutions use conversational artificial intelligence to understand customer intent, enabling companies to create personalized, predictive, and effortless customer experiences across all channels; attract and retain customers; boost agent pr...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:11,282
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

-
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
[24]7.ai

[24]7.ai

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for [24]7.ai in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - [24]7.ai (X = Date, Y = Severity)

[24]7.ai 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...
Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
[24]7.ai

[24]7.ai

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 company and [24]7.ai company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 and [24]7.ai, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 and [24]7.ai, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 or [24]7.ai ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 or [24]7.ai ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 and [24]7.ai, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Workday K.K. ワークデイ株式会社 and [24]7.ai, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9