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

Comparison Overview

YPF DigitalYPF Digital
VS
Red HatRed Hat
YPF Digital

YPF Digital

Macacha Güemes 515, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 1107, AR

Last Update: 01/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://ypfdigital.com/
750/1000Fair

We are a new company that integrates the digital assets through which YPF is linked to its customers. We start from the integration of applications, the launch of new solutions and the acceleration of "time to market" to develop ecosystems focused on people and on the r...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:18
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Red Hat

Red Hat

100 E. Davie St., Raleigh, NC, US, 27601

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.redhat.com
688/1000Weak

Red Hat is the world’s leading provider of enterprise open source solutions, using a community-powered approach to deliver high-performing Linux, hybrid cloud, edge, and Kubernetes technologies. We hire creative, passionate people who are ready to contribute their idea...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:19,335
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
YPF Digital

YPF Digital

-
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
Red Hat

Red Hat

-
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 YPF Digital in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Red Hat in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - YPF Digital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

YPF Digital cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Red Hat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Red Hat 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...
YPF Digital

YPF Digital

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Red Hat

Red Hat

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RED4732847100725
🔒 Incident : Breach
RED4292342100825
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
RED1694016100125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56785
SUMMARY

FlatPress versions prior to commit 10be83c, contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in comment and contact forms where name, URL, and email fields are rendered without proper output encoding in Smarty templates. Attackers can inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript through these fields to execute malicious scripts in browsers of viewers including administrators, or bypass URL scheme validation to inject javascript: or data: URIs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54588
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 use the attacker-controlled `HTTP_HOST` request header as the authoritative source for building callback URLs in its OIDC, SAML, and logout authentication flows without any validation. An unauthenticated attacker can poison the `redirect_uri` sent to the Identity Provider, causing the IdP to redirect the victim's authorization code to an attacker-controlled server - resulting in full account takeover with no credentials required. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-48493
SUMMARY

Snipe-IT is an IT asset/license management system. In versions prior to 8.6.0, a user with only users.edit can send a PATCH to /api/v1/users/{their_own_id} and grant themselves any permission except admin and superuser — for example `assets.view`, `assets.create`, `reports.view`, import, etc. The issue is patched in version 8.6.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-47693
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 are vulnerable to CSV Injection (Formula Injection) in its log export functionality. User-controlled data — specifically the username field — is written to exported CSV files without sanitizing formula trigger characters (=, +, -, @). When an administrator exports activity logs and opens the resulting CSV in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets), any formula stored in a username is executed by the application. This can be used for phishing attacks against administrators or data exfiltration. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-12164
SUMMARY

Fortra File Integrity Monitoring (FIM), formerly Tripwire Enterprise, versions prior to 9.4.0 may assign incorrect or elevated effective permissions to users created by the tetool import command while FIM is running, particularly when the import also creates or changes roles or role-permission relationships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
0.8