Comparison Overview

Ricoh USA, Inc.

VS

Mastercard

Ricoh USA, Inc.

300 Eagleview Blvd, Exton, 19341, US
Last Update: 2026-03-29
Between 750 and 799

At Ricoh, we bring people, processes, and technology together to make information work for you. We unlock the power of information so organizations can unlock the full potential of their people. We're a leader in information management and digital services, creating competitive advantage for over 1.4 million businesses across the globe. Our team members serve a vast array of industries, using an innovative mix of people, processes, and technology to free trapped and hidden insights. We believe having access to the right information translates to better business agility, more human experiences, and the ability to thrive in today's age of hybrid and borderless work.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 18,441
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Mastercard

2000 Purchase St, Purchase, NY, US, 10577
Last Update: 2026-03-28
Between 800 and 849

Mastercard powers economies and empowers people in 200+ countries and territories worldwide. Together with our customers, we’re building a sustainable economy where everyone can prosper. We support a wide range of digital payments choices, making transactions secure, simple, smart and accessible. Our technology and innovation, partnerships and networks combine to deliver a unique set of products and services that help people, businesses and governments realize their greatest potential.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 46,686
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ricoh-company-ltd-.jpeg
Ricoh USA, Inc.
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/mastercard.jpeg
Mastercard
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
Ricoh USA, Inc.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mastercard
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ricoh USA, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mastercard in 2026.

Incident History — Ricoh USA, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ricoh USA, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Mastercard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ricoh-company-ltd-.jpeg
Ricoh USA, Inc.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mastercard.jpeg
Mastercard
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Lame nameserver delegation (Sitting Ducks)
Motivation: Financial gain (ad fraud, brand impersonation)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 08/2019
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mastercard company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Ricoh USA, Inc. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Mastercard company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ricoh USA, Inc. company has not reported any.

In the current year, Mastercard company and Ricoh USA, Inc. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Mastercard company nor Ricoh USA, Inc. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Mastercard company nor Ricoh USA, Inc. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Mastercard company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ricoh USA, Inc. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. company nor Mastercard company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mastercard company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ricoh USA, Inc. company.

Mastercard company employs more people globally than Ricoh USA, Inc. company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ricoh USA, Inc. nor Mastercard holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3300R 17.0.0cu.557_b20221024. This affects the function setLanCfg of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component Parameter Handler. The manipulation of the argument lanIp leads to command injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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

Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94.

Description

Ghidra versions prior to 12.0.3 improperly process annotation directives embedded in automatically extracted binary data, resulting in arbitrary command execution when an analyst interacts with the UI. Specifically, the @execute annotation (which is intended for trusted, user-authored comments) is also parsed in comments generated during auto-analysis (such as CFStrings in Mach-O binaries). This allows a crafted binary to present seemingly benign clickable text which, when clicked, executes attacker-controlled commands on the analyst’s machine.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

A critical security vulnerability in parisneo/lollms versions up to 2.2.0 allows any authenticated user to accept or reject friend requests belonging to other users. The `respond_request()` function in `backend/routers/friends.py` does not implement proper authorization checks, enabling Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) attacks. Specifically, the `/api/friends/requests/{friendship_id}` endpoint fails to verify whether the authenticated user is part of the friendship or the intended recipient of the request. This vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access, privacy violations, and potential social engineering attacks. The issue has been addressed in version 2.2.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms versions prior to 2.2.0, specifically in the `/api/files/export-content` endpoint. The `_download_image_to_temp()` function in `backend/routers/files.py` fails to validate user-controlled URLs, allowing attackers to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This vulnerability can lead to internal network access, cloud metadata access, information disclosure, port scanning, and potentially remote code execution.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N