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

Comparison Overview

All of SecurityAll of Security
VS
ThoughtworksThoughtworks
All of Security

All of Security

Cracow, PL

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://allofsecurity.pl/
755/1000Fair

Projekt All of Security powstał, by dzielić się wiedzą o bezpieczeństwie IT. Dzięki zaangażowaniu w projekt ekspertów Exclusive Networks Poland, będziemy edukować wszystkie zainteresowane tymi zagadnieniami osoby, jak skutecznie budować system bezpieczeństwa firmy lu...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:42
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

200 E Randolph St, 25th Floor, Chicago, IL, US, 60601-6501

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.thoughtworks.com
792/1000Fair

We are a global technology consultancy that delivers extraordinary impact by blending design, engineering and AI expertise. For 30 years, our commitment to design-led thinking, engineering excellence and innovation means we prioritize people, build teams with strong te...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:12,302
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
All of Security

All of Security

-
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
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

-
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 Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for All of Security in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Thoughtworks in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - All of Security (X = Date, Y = Severity)

All of Security cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Thoughtworks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thoughtworks 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...
All of Security

All of Security

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2