Comparison Overview

Argo Project

VS

IGT Solutions

Argo Project

Mountain View, 94043, US
Last Update: 2026-01-20
Between 700 and 749

Argo Project is a collection of projects to get stuff done with Kubernetes! Argo Workflows — Container-native workflow engine, Argo CD — Declarative continuous deployment, and Argo Events — Event-based dependency manager.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 31
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

IGT Solutions

Sector 32 Road, Plot 49, Echelon Building, Gurugram, Haryana, IN, 122 001
Last Update: 2026-01-18

IGT Solutions is a next-gen customer experience (CX) company, defining and delivering AI-led transformative experiences for the global and most innovative brands using digital technologies. With the combination of Digital and Human Intelligence, IGT becomes the preferred partner for managing end-to-end CX journeys across Travel and High Growth Tech industries. Established in 1998, with a 100% focus on customer experience, IGT employs more than 25,000 customer experience and technology specialists providing services to 85 marquee customers globally. IGT’s global footprint consists of 31 delivery centers in China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Romania, South Africa, Spain, UAE, the US, and Vietnam. IGT is ISO 27001:2013, CMMI SVC Level 5 and ISAE-3402 compliant for IT, and COPC® Certified v6.0, ISO 27001:2013 and PCI DSS 3.2 certified for BPO processes. The organization follows Six Sigma rigor for process improvements.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 17,792
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/argoproj.jpeg
Argo Project
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/igtsolutions.jpeg
IGT Solutions
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
Argo Project
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
IGT Solutions
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Argo Project in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IGT Solutions in 2026.

Incident History — Argo Project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Argo Project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — IGT Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

IGT Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/argoproj.jpeg
Argo Project
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Malicious JavaScript injection through repository links
Motivation: Unauthorized actions on Kubernetes resources
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/igtsolutions.jpeg
IGT Solutions
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

IGT Solutions company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Argo Project company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Argo Project company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas IGT Solutions company has not reported any.

In the current year, IGT Solutions company and Argo Project company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither IGT Solutions company nor Argo Project company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither IGT Solutions company nor Argo Project company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither IGT Solutions company nor Argo Project company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Argo Project company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while IGT Solutions company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

IGT Solutions company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Argo Project company.

IGT Solutions company employs more people globally than Argo Project company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Argo Project nor IGT Solutions holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N