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

Comparison Overview

Zoho DeutschlandZoho Deutschland
VS
TencentTencent
Zoho Deutschland

Zoho Deutschland

Deutschland, DE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.zoho.com/de/
753/1000Fair

Über Zoho in Deutschland Die 1996 gegründete Zoho Corporation ist das Softwareunternehmen hinter drei großen Marken: Zoho, ManageEngine und WebNMS. Zoho bietet intelligente Software, die Ihnen hilft, Ihr Unternehmen zu vergrößern. Mit über 100 Millionen Nutzern weltwe...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:74
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tencent

Tencent

Tencent Seafront Towers, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, CN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
729/1000Moderate

Tencent is a world-leading internet and technology company that develops innovative products and services to improve the quality of life of people around the world. Founded in 1998 with its headquarters in Shenzhen, China, Tencent's guiding principle is to use technolo...

NAICS:5112
NAICS Definition:Software Publishers
Employees:89,363
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Zoho Deutschland

Zoho Deutschland

-
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
Tencent

Tencent

-
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 Zoho Deutschland in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tencent in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Zoho Deutschland (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zoho Deutschland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Tencent 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...
Zoho Deutschland

Zoho Deutschland

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tencent

Tencent

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TENMYSTWITENCANADODEEFRIUNIBRA1769520245
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEN1292112102725

FAQ

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