Comparison Overview

Intel Corporation

VS

Texas Instruments

Intel Corporation

Robert Noyce Building, None, Santa Clara, California, US, 95052
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 750 and 799

Our mission is to shape the future of technology to help create a better future for the entire world, that’s the power of Intel Inside. With more ingenuity and creativity inside, our work is at the heart of countless innovations. From major breakthroughs to things that make everyday life better— they’re all powered by Intel technology. With a career at Intel, you can help make the future more wonderful for everyone.

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 0
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
3

Texas Instruments

12500 T I Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75243, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 800 and 849

We are a global semiconductor company that designs, manufactures and sells analog and embedded processing chips for markets such as industrial, automotive, personal electronics, enterprise systems and communications equipment. At our core, we have a passion to create a better world by making electronics more affordable through semiconductors. This passion is alive today as each generation of innovation builds upon the last to make our technology more reliable, more affordable and lower power, making it possible for semiconductors to go into electronics everywhere. Learn more at TI.com.

NAICS: 3344
NAICS Definition: Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees: 31,479
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intel-corporation.jpeg
Intel Corporation
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/texas-instruments.jpeg
Texas Instruments
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
Intel Corporation
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Texas Instruments
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

Intel Corporation has 12.36% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Texas Instruments in 2025.

Incident History — Intel Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intel Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Texas Instruments (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Texas Instruments cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intel-corporation.jpeg
Intel Corporation
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Local Privilege Escalation, Cross-Tenant Data Theft in Cloud Environments, Memory Cache Exploitation
Motivation: Data Theft, Espionage, Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Information
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Client-side Authentication Bypass (JavaScript modification), Hardcoded Credentials (weak AES encryption: key '1234567890123456'), Lack of Server-Side Validation, Unauthenticated API Issuing Valid Access Tokens, Fabricated Authorization Token ('Not Autorized' typo bypass), API Response Manipulation for Administrative Access
Motivation: Research, Responsible Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Authentication Bypass, Hardcoded Credentials, Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR)
Motivation: Research/Disclosure (Ethical)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/texas-instruments.jpeg
Texas Instruments
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Texas Instruments company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Intel Corporation company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Intel Corporation company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Texas Instruments company has not reported any.

In the current year, Intel Corporation company has reported more cyber incidents than Texas Instruments company.

Intel Corporation company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Texas Instruments company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Intel Corporation company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Texas Instruments company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Texas Instruments company nor Intel Corporation company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Intel Corporation company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Texas Instruments company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Intel Corporation company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Texas Instruments company.

Texas Instruments company employs more people globally than Intel Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Intel Corporation nor Texas Instruments 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