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

Comparison Overview

ZeroedInZeroedIn
VS
SnowflakeSnowflake
ZeroedIn

ZeroedIn

780 Elkridge Landing Road, Suite 208, Linthicum, 21090, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.zeroedin.com
716/1000Moderate

We are ZeroedIn, committed to revolutionizing how businesses manage and utilize employee data. Our highly secure, unified platform serves as a single source of truth for all data sets, empowering organizations to harness their data to drive actionable insights and make ...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Snowflake

Snowflake

The Cloud, US

Last Update: 06/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.snowflake.com
100/1000Critical

**Snowflake is proud to be the Official Data Collaboration Provider for LA28 and Team USA.** Snowflake delivers the AI Data Cloud — a global network where thousands of organizations mobilize data with near-unlimited scale, concurrency, and performance. Inside the AI Da...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:12,567
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
20
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ZeroedIn

ZeroedIn

-
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
Snowflake

Snowflake

-
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 ZeroedIn in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

Snowflake has 579.61% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

ZeroedIn cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Snowflake 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...
ZeroedIn

ZeroedIn

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ZER047072425
Snowflake

Snowflake

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEN1779855877
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROCANOSNO1776126436
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANO1775660105

FAQ

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