Comparison Overview

WSO2

VS

ServiceNow

WSO2

3080 Olcott St, Ponderosa Office Center, Suite C220, Santa Clara, California, US, 95054
Last Update: 2026-01-19
Between 750 and 799

Founded in 2005, WSO2 enables thousands of enterprises, including hundreds of the world’s largest corporations, top universities, and governments, to drive their digital transformation journeys—executing more than 60 trillion transactions and managing over 1 billion identities annually. WSO2's suite of tools for application development and customer identity and access management (CIAM) helps these organizations harness the full power of their APIs to securely create and deliver awesome digital experiences. Our API-first approach to software that runs on-premises and in the cloud helps developers and architects be more productive and rapidly compose digital products that enhance the user experience and deliver stakeholder value. WSO2 has over 800 employees worldwide, with offices in Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Sri Lanka, the UAE, the UK, and the US.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 1,161
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

ServiceNow

2225 Lawson Lane, Santa Clara, CA, US, 95054
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 800 and 849

ServiceNow (NYSE: NOW) makes the world work better for everyone. Our cloud-based platform and solutions help digitize and unify organizations so that they can find smarter, faster, better ways to make work flow. So employees and customers can be more connected, more innovative, and more agile. And we can all create the future we imagine. The world works with ServiceNow. For more information, visit www.servicenow.com.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 31,971
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wso2.jpeg
WSO2
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/servicenow.jpeg
ServiceNow
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
WSO2
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ServiceNow
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for WSO2 in 2026.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

ServiceNow has 14.53% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — WSO2 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WSO2 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

ServiceNow cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wso2.jpeg
WSO2
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network
Motivation: Unauthorized Access to User Accounts
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/servicenow.jpeg
ServiceNow
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Impersonation without authentication
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Misconfigured or overly permissive ACLs
Motivation: Data Exfiltration
Blog: Blog

FAQ

ServiceNow company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to WSO2 company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

ServiceNow company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to WSO2 company.

In the current year, ServiceNow company has reported more cyber incidents than WSO2 company.

Neither ServiceNow company nor WSO2 company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither ServiceNow company nor WSO2 company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither ServiceNow company nor WSO2 company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Both WSO2 company and ServiceNow company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

ServiceNow company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to WSO2 company.

ServiceNow company employs more people globally than WSO2 company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow holds HIPAA certification.

Neither WSO2 nor ServiceNow 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