Comparison Overview

Microsoft

VS

Dassault Systèmes

Microsoft

1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, US, 98052
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

Every company has a mission. What's ours? To empower every person and every organization to achieve more. We believe technology can and should be a force for good and that meaningful innovation contributes to a brighter world in the future and today. Our culture doesn’t just encourage curiosity; it embraces it. Each day we make progress together by showing up as our authentic selves. We show up with a learn-it-all mentality. We show up cheering on others, knowing their success doesn't diminish our own. We show up every day open to learning our own biases, changing our behavior, and inviting in differences. Because impact matters. Microsoft operates in 190 countries and is made up of approximately 228,000 passionate employees worldwide.

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 220,893
Subsidiaries: 51
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
5

Dassault Systèmes

10, rue Marcel Dassault, None, Vélizy-Villacoublay, None, FR, 78140
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

Dassault Systèmes is a catalyst for human progress. Since 1981, the company has pioneered virtual worlds to improve real life for consumers, patients and citizens. With Dassault Systèmes’ 3DEXPERIENCE platform, 370,000 customers of all sizes, in all industries, can collaborate, imagine and create sustainable innovations that drive meaningful impact. For more information, visit: https://www.3ds.com

NAICS: 5112
NAICS Definition: Software Publishers
Employees: 27,261
Subsidiaries: 29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
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/dassaultsystemes.jpeg
Dassault Systèmes
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
Microsoft
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Dassault Systèmes
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Software Development Industry Average (This Year)

Microsoft has 1624.14% 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 Dassault Systèmes in 2025.

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

Microsoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Dassault Systèmes (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Dassault Systèmes cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/microsoft.jpeg
Microsoft
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: AI Agent Exploitation (e.g., autonomous decision-making, broad data access), SaaS Infrastructure Compromise (e.g., widely-deployed firewalls), Identity Sprawl (e.g., over-permissioned roles, shadow identities), Synthetic Social Engineering (e.g., deepfakes, adaptive phishing), Critical Infrastructure Targeting (e.g., energy grids, water systems), Supply Chain Attacks (e.g., multi-cloud complexities), Concentrated Infrastructure Risk (e.g., Microsoft, Amazon, Google backbones)
Motivation: Financial Gain (e.g., ransomware, data exfiltration), Geopolitical Disruption (e.g., critical infrastructure sabotage), Espionage (e.g., AI-driven data theft), Market Manipulation (e.g., disrupting cloud providers), Talent Pipeline Exploitation (e.g., targeting entry-level job gaps)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Microsoft Teams Chat/Call Impersonation, Malicious File/Link Sharing (Teams channels), API Abuse (Microsoft Graph, Entra ID), Device Code Phishing, Malvertising (Fake Teams installers), AiTM (Adversary-in-the-Middle) Phishing, RMM Tool Deployment (e.g., AnyDesk), Federated Tenant Misconfigurations, Legitimate Admin Tools (e.g., AADInternals, PowerShell)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransomware, Extortion, Fraud), Espionage (State-Sponsored Actors), Credential Harvesting (Initial Access Brokering), Disruption (Operational Sabotage), Data Theft (PII, Corporate Intelligence)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: compromised maintainer account, malicious GitHub Actions workflow ('Add Github Actions Security workflow')
Motivation: credential harvesting, supply-chain compromise, potential follow-on attacks
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dassaultsystemes.jpeg
Dassault Systèmes
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2020
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Network, Malicious SOAP Requests, Base64-encoded GZIP-compressed .NET Executable
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Dassault Systèmes company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Microsoft company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Microsoft company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Dassault Systèmes company.

In the current year, Microsoft company has reported more cyber incidents than Dassault Systèmes company.

Microsoft company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Dassault Systèmes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Dassault Systèmes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Microsoft company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Dassault Systèmes company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Microsoft company and Dassault Systèmes company have disclosed vulnerabilities.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Microsoft company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Dassault Systèmes company.

Microsoft company employs more people globally than Dassault Systèmes company, reflecting its scale as a Software Development.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Microsoft nor Dassault Systèmes holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreePBX Endpoint Manager is a module for managing telephony endpoints in FreePBX systems. Versions prior to 16.0.96 and 17.0.1 through 17.0.9 have a weak default password. By default, this is a 6 digit numeric value which can be brute forced. (This is the app_password parameter). Depending on local configuration, this password could be the extension, voicemail, user manager, DPMA or EPM phone admin password. This issue is fixed in versions 16.0.96 and 17.0.10.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: 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:X/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

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. In versions 2.8.11 and below, the MySQLWriteTool executes arbitrary SQL provided by the caller using PDO::prepare() + execute() without semantic restrictions. This is consistent with the name (“write tool”), but in an LLM/agent context it becomes a high-risk capability: prompt injection or indirect prompt manipulation can cause execution of destructive queries such as DROP TABLE, TRUNCATE, DELETE, ALTER, or privilege-related statements (subject to DB permissions). Deployments that expose an agent with MySQLWriteTool enabled to untrusted input and/or run the tool with a DB user that has broad privileges are impacted. This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:H
Description

Neuron is a PHP framework for creating and orchestrating AI Agents. Versions 2.8.11 and below use MySQLSelectTool, which is vulnerable to Read-Only Bypass. MySQLSelectTool is intended to be a read-only SQL tool (e.g., for LLM agent querying, however, validation based on the first keyword (e.g., SELECT) and a forbidden-keyword list does not block file-writing constructs such as INTO OUTFILE / INTO DUMPFILE. As a result, an attacker who can influence the tool input (e.g., via prompt injection through a public agent endpoint) may write arbitrary files to the DB server if the MySQL/MariaDB account has the FILE privilege and server configuration permits writes to a useful location (e.g., a web-accessible directory). This issue is fixed in version 2.8.12.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API. In versions 11.0.0 through 20.0.0, race conditions may arise from concurrent requests using the ApiClient class. This could cause a status code or response header from one request’s response to influence another request’s response. This issue is fixed in version 20.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

The Auth0 Next.js SDK is a library for implementing user authentication in Next.js applications. When using versions 4.11.0 through 4.11.2 and 4.12.0, simultaneous requests on the same client may result in improper lookups in the TokenRequestCache for the request results. This issue is fixed in versions 4.11.2 and 4.12.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N