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

Comparison Overview

Adamson Jones part of GateleyAdamson Jones part of Gateley
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Adamson Jones part of Gateley

Adamson Jones part of Gateley

undefined, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG1 5DW, GB

Last Update: 26/12/2025

View Profile
750/1000Fair

Adamson Jones is a dedicated patent and trade mark practice specialising in obtaining intellectual property rights for businesses and organisations in the UK, Europe and throughout the world. As part of Gateley, we work in a progressive arrangement alongside our colle...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:26
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HT, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
782/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,333
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Adamson Jones part of Gateley

Adamson Jones part of Gateley

-
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
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
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 Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Adamson Jones part of Gateley in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Adamson Jones part of Gateley (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Adamson Jones part of Gateley cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Adamson Jones part of Gateley

Adamson Jones part of Gateley

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-91201
SUMMARY

DocsGPT through 0.20.0 posts OAuth connector session tokens to a wildcard target origin in the callback-status endpoint without validating sender origin. Attackers can obtain session tokens and provider account emails by acting as window.opener during OAuth authorization, then use tokens to disconnect victims' cloud storage connectors.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-91200
SUMMARY

DevSpace through 6.3.21 fails to reject parent-directory segments in tar entry names from the in-pod sync stream. Attackers operating a malicious container can stream tar entries with traversal sequences to write arbitrary files on the developer workstation, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-91199
SUMMARY

Refly through 1.1.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the POST /v1/misc/scrape endpoint that fetches caller-supplied URLs without validating the scheme, host, or resolved address. Authenticated attackers can make the backend issue requests to loopback, private, and link-local addresses including cloud metadata services to read page titles and descriptions of internal resources.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-91198
SUMMARY

GrowthBook through 5.0.1 returns unredacted fact table definitions including raw warehouse SQL in payloads served by unauthenticated public report and experiment endpoints. Attackers with knowledge of a publicly shared report or experiment identifier can read internal data warehouse query text, schema, table names, filter values and datasource identifiers.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-91197
SUMMARY

Flowable flowable-engine through 8.0.0 contains an XML external entity injection vulnerability in ProcessDiagramLayoutFactory.parseXml() that fails to disable external entity resolution when parsing deployed BPMN resources. Attackers with process deployment privileges can embed DOCTYPE declarations with external entities in BPMN files to read arbitrary local files or trigger requests to internal network endpoints when diagram layout is computed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-14
UPDATED
Date2026-09-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8