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

Comparison Overview

Zendesk PartnersZendesk Partners
VS
PhonePePhonePe
Zendesk Partners

Zendesk Partners

San Francisco, US

Last Update: 07/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://zendesk.com/partners
754/1000Fair

Welcome to our LinkedIn Partner page! We're all about Zendesk GTM and Tech Alliance Partners – a community focused on helping our joint customers unlock the power of their CX. Stay in the loop with the latest trends, events, and useful tidbits designed with you in mind....

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
PhonePe

PhonePe

Green Glen Layout Road, Bengaluru East, 560103, IN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.phonepe.com
801/1000Good

PhonePe Group is India’s leading fintech company, proudly recognized as India’s #1 Trusted Digital Payments* Brand for three consecutive years. Our flagship product, the PhonePe app was launched in August 2016, has rapidly become the preferred consumer payments app in I...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:18,344
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Zendesk Partners

Zendesk Partners

-
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
PhonePe

PhonePe

-
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 Zendesk Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PhonePe in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Zendesk Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zendesk Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - PhonePe (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PhonePe 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...
Zendesk Partners

Zendesk Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
PhonePe

PhonePe

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-8023
SUMMARY

Zephyr's HTTP server (subsys/net/lib/http) provides a static-filesystem resource type (HTTP_RESOURCE_TYPE_STATIC_FS, available when CONFIG_FILE_SYSTEM is enabled) that serves files from a configured root directory. Before this fix, both the HTTP/1 and HTTP/2 front-ends placed the raw, attacker-controlled request path into client-url_buffer (assembled in on_url() for HTTP/1 and copied verbatim from the :path pseudo-header for HTTP/2) without resolving ./.. segments. The static-FS handler then built the on-disk filename by directly concatenating the configured root with that raw URL (snprintk(fname, ..., "%s%s", static_fs_detail-fs_path, client-url_buffer) at http_server_http1.c:603 and http_server_http2.c:490) and opened it with fs_open(fname, FS_O_READ). Because the handler is reached via wildcard/leading-dir (fnmatch FNM_LEADING_DIR) or fallback resource matching, a request such as GET /<prefix/../../<file is dispatched to the handler and, after the underlying filesystem (e.g. LittleFS/FAT) resolves the .. segments, escapes the configured web root, letting an unauthenticated remote client read arbitrary readable files on the mounted volume (information disclosure). The HTTP server requires no TLS or authentication to reach this path. The fix adds http_server_remove_dot_segments(), which canonicalizes the path portion of the URL before resource lookup in both protocol handlers, neutralizing the traversal. Affects releases v4.0.0 through v4.4.0 for deployments that register a static-filesystem resource.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
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
CVE-2026-7656
SUMMARY

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery handlers in subsys/net/ip/ipv6_nbr.c (handle_ra_input, handle_ns_input, handle_na_input) used an incorrect boolean expression that combined the RFC 4861 validity checks with the ICMPv6 code check using the wrong operator precedence: the form was '((length/hop/source/target checks) && (icmp_hdr-code != 0))'. Because every legitimate ND message carries ICMPv6 code 0, an attacker setting code == 0 (the normal value) caused the entire predicate to evaluate false, so the packet was never dropped and all of the other checks were silently skipped. The bypassed checks include the mandatory Hop Limit == 255 verification (which proves an ND packet originated on-link and was not forwarded) and, for Router Advertisements, the requirement that the source be a link-local address, as well as multicast-target sanity checks. As a result, an adjacent on-link attacker — and, because the Hop-Limit-255 guard is bypassed, potentially a remote/off-link attacker whose packets would otherwise be rejected — can have forged Router Advertisement, Neighbor Solicitation, and Neighbor Advertisement messages accepted. A forged RA lets the attacker reconfigure the victim's default router, on-link prefixes (SLAAC), MTU, reachable/retransmit timers, and (with CONFIG_NET_IPV6_RA_RDNSS) DNS servers, while forged NS/NA enable neighbor-cache poisoning, enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic redirection, and denial of service. The flaw is an input-validation/authentication weakness rather than a memory-safety issue: the underlying packet-parsing primitives (net_pkt_get_data, net_pkt_read, net_pkt_skip) are independently bounds-safe and the validated 'length' is the true buffer length, so skipping the length check causes no out-of-bounds access. The defect has existed since the logic was introduced in 2018 and shipped in all releases through v4.4.0; it is fixed by splitting the condition so any failing check drops the packet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-51219
SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the HighPriorityASDUQueue_hasUnconfirmedIMessages function of lib60870 v2.3.3 to v2.3.6 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted payload.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-51218
SUMMARY

A heap buffer overflow in the TS7Worker::PerformFunctionWrite() function (/core/s7_server.cpp) of snap7 v1.4.3 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted packet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-10648
SUMMARY

mcumgr_serial_process_frag() in subsys/mgmt/mcumgr/transport/src/serial_util.c calls net_buf_reset() on the result of smp_packet_alloc() before checking it for NULL. smp_packet_alloc() uses net_buf_alloc(K_NO_WAIT) against the shared MCUmgr packet pool (CONFIG_MCUMGR_TRANSPORT_NETBUF_COUNT, default 4), which returns NULL when the pool is exhausted. In default builds the __ASSERT_NO_MSG in net_buf_reset is a no-op, so net_buf_simple_reset writes through the NULL pointer (buf->len = 0; buf->data = buf->__buf), causing a fault/crash. The fragment data reaches this code from attacker-controlled bytes on the MCUmgr serial/UART/shell-console transports (smp_uart.c, smp_raw_uart.c, smp_shell.c), and a fresh buffer is allocated at the start of essentially every new packet. An attacker on the serial/console link can flood the transport to drive the 4-entry buffer pool to exhaustion and induce the NULL dereference, crashing the device (denial of service). The defect was introduced after the original MCUmgr rework and shipped in Zephyr v4.4.0. The fix moves the NULL check ahead of net_buf_reset.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-29
UPDATED
Date2026-06-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.5