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

Comparison Overview

Applus+ PacificApplus+ Pacific
VS
EY-ParthenonEY-Parthenon
Applus+ Pacific

Applus+ Pacific

94 Discovery Drive, Bibra Lake, Western Australia, AU, 6163

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.applus.com.au
752/1000Fair

Applus+ is a worldwide leader in the testing, inspection, and certification sector. We are a trusted partner, enhancing the quality and safety of our client’s assets and infrastructures while safeguarding their operations and improving their environmental performance. ...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:142
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

1 More London Place, London, SE1 2AF, GB

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ey.com/parthenon
785/1000Fair

Our unique combination of transformative strategy, transactions and corporate finance delivers real-world value – solutions that work in practice, not just on paper. Benefiting from EY’s full spectrum of services, we’ve reimagined strategic consulting to work in a worl...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:18,222
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Applus+ Pacific

Applus+ Pacific

-
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
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Applus+ Pacific in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EY-Parthenon in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Applus+ Pacific (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Applus+ Pacific cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EY-Parthenon (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EY-Parthenon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Applus+ Pacific

Applus+ Pacific

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
EY-Parthenon

EY-Parthenon

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8