Comparison Overview

Alibaba Group

VS

IGT

Alibaba Group

969 West Wen Yi Road, Hangzhou, 311121, CN
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 750 and 799

🌍Alibaba Group is on a mission to make it easy to do business anywhere! Guided by our passion and imagination, we’re leading the way in AI, cloud computing and e-commerce. We aim to build the future infrastructure of commerce, and we aspire to be a good company that lasts for 102 years.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 84,600
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

IGT

6355 S Buffalo Dr, Las Vegas, NV, US, 89113
Last Update: 2026-04-01
Between 550 and 599

IGT is a leading global provider of gaming, digital and financial technology solutions, formed through the combination of International Game Technology PLC’s Gaming & Digital Business and Everi Holdings Inc. IGT’s offering spans gaming machines, game content and systems, iGaming, sports betting, cash access, loyalty and player engagement solutions, enabling it to deliver integrated, customer-centric experiences across land-based and digital environments. Organized into Gaming, Digital and FinTech business units, IGT drives innovation, efficiency and value for casino, digital and hospitality operators worldwide. The company is headquartered in Las Vegas.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 10,303
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alibaba-group.jpeg
Alibaba Group
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/igt.jpeg
IGT
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
Alibaba Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
IGT
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Alibaba Group has 66.67% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IGT in 2026.

Incident History — Alibaba Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alibaba Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

IGT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/alibaba-group.jpeg
Alibaba Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI System Autonomy
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Brute-force attacks, Exploiting unpatched vulnerabilities, Weak configurations
Motivation: Financial gain, Disruption
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2020
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Server-based data exfiltration
Motivation: Cyber espionage
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igt.jpeg
IGT
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: financial gain, data extortion
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Alibaba Group company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to IGT company.

In the current year, Alibaba Group company has reported more cyber incidents than IGT company.

IGT company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Alibaba Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Alibaba Group company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other IGT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Alibaba Group company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while IGT company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Alibaba Group company nor IGT company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Alibaba Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to IGT company.

Alibaba Group company employs more people globally than IGT company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Alibaba Group nor IGT holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in itsourcecode Payroll Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /manage_user.php of the component Parameter Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument ID results in sql injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A vulnerability was identified in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. Affected is the function AP4_BitReader::SkipBits of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component DSI v1 Parser. Such manipulation of the argument n_presentations leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be performed locally. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A vulnerability was determined in Axiomatic Bento4 up to 1.6.0-641. This impacts the function AP4_BitReader::ReadCache of the file Ap4Dac4Atom.cpp of the component MP4 File Parser. This manipulation causes heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be launched locally. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a heap-buffer-overflow (HBO) in icAnsiToUtf8() in the XML conversion path. The issue is triggered by a crafted ICC profile which causes icAnsiToUtf8(std::string&, char const*) to treat an input buffer as a C-string and call operations that rely on strlen()/null-termination. AddressSanitizer reports an out-of-bounds READ of size 115 past a 114-byte heap allocation, with the failure observed while running the iccToXml tool. This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

iccDEV provides a set of libraries and tools for working with ICC color management profiles. Prior to version 2.3.1.6, there is a stack-buffer-overflow (SBO) in CIccTagFixedNum<>::GetValues() and a related bug chain. The primary crash is an AddressSanitizer-reported WRITE of size 4 that overflows a 4-byte stack variable (rv) via the call chain CIccTagFixedNum::GetValues() -> CIccTagStruct::GetElemNumberValue(). This issue has been patched in version 2.3.1.6.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H