Comparison Overview

Autotrader US

VS

Interpublic Group (IPG)

Autotrader US

3003 Summit Blvd., Suite 200, Atlanta, GA, US, 30319
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

Autotrader is the most visited third-party car shopping site, with the most engaged audience of in-market shoppers. As the foremost authority on automotive consumer insights and expert in online and mobile marketing, Autotrader makes the car shopping experience easy and fun for today's empowered consumer looking to find or sell the perfect new, used or Certified Pre-Owned car. Using technology, shopper insights and local market guidance, Autotrader's comprehensive marketing solutions guide dealers to personalized digital marketing strategies that grow brand, drive traffic and connect the online and in-store shopping experience. Autotrader is a Cox Automotive™ brand. Cox Automotive is a subsidiary of Cox Enterprises. For more information, please visit http://press.autotrader.com.

NAICS: 541613
NAICS Definition: Marketing Consulting Services
Employees: 1,266
Subsidiaries: 14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Interpublic Group (IPG)

909 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, US
Last Update: 2025-12-10
Between 750 and 799

Interpublic (NYSE: IPG) is a values-based, data-fueled, and creatively-driven provider of marketing solutions. Home to some of the world’s best-known and most innovative communications specialists, IPG global brands include Acxiom, Craft, FCB, FutureBrand, Golin, Initiative, IPG Health, IPG Mediabrands, Jack Morton, KINESSO, MAGNA, McCann, Mediahub, Momentum, MRM, MullenLowe Global, Octagon, UM, Weber Shandwick and more. IPG is an S&P 500 company with total revenue of $10.7 billion in 2024.

NAICS: 541613
NAICS Definition: Marketing Consulting Services
Employees: 15,245
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/autotrader-com.jpeg
Autotrader US
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/ipg.jpeg
Interpublic Group (IPG)
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
Autotrader US
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Interpublic Group (IPG)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Autotrader US in 2025.

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Interpublic Group (IPG) in 2025.

Incident History — Autotrader US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Autotrader US cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Interpublic Group (IPG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Interpublic Group (IPG) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/autotrader-com.jpeg
Autotrader US
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882), Unauthenticated Access, Multi-Stage Java Implants, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Internal (Insider)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Automated Collection Methods
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ipg.jpeg
Interpublic Group (IPG)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Interpublic Group (IPG) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Autotrader US company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Autotrader US company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Interpublic Group (IPG) company has not reported any.

In the current year, Autotrader US company has reported more cyber incidents than Interpublic Group (IPG) company.

Autotrader US company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Interpublic Group (IPG) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Autotrader US company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Interpublic Group (IPG) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Autotrader US company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Interpublic Group (IPG) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Autotrader US company nor Interpublic Group (IPG) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Interpublic Group (IPG) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Autotrader US company.

Interpublic Group (IPG) company employs more people globally than Autotrader US company, reflecting its scale as a Advertising Services.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Autotrader US nor Interpublic Group (IPG) holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Nagios XI versions prior to 2026R1.1 are vulnerable to local privilege escalation due to an unsafe interaction between sudo permissions and application file permissions. A user‑accessible maintenance script may be executed as root via sudo and includes an application file that is writable by a lower‑privileged user. A local attacker with access to the application account can modify this file to introduce malicious code, which is then executed with elevated privileges when the script is run. Successful exploitation results in arbitrary code execution as the root user.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.6
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/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
Description

Out of bounds read and write in V8 in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

Use after free in WebGPU in Google Chrome prior to 143.0.7499.147 allowed a remote attacker to potentially exploit heap corruption via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: High)

Description

SIPGO is a library for writing SIP services in the GO language. Starting in version 0.3.0 and prior to version 1.0.0-alpha-1, a nil pointer dereference vulnerability is in the SIPGO library's `NewResponseFromRequest` function that affects all normal SIP operations. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to crash any SIP application by sending a single malformed SIP request without a To header. The vulnerability occurs when SIP message parsing succeeds for a request missing the To header, but the response creation code assumes the To header exists without proper nil checks. This affects routine operations like call setup, authentication, and message handling - not just error cases. This vulnerability affects all SIP applications using the sipgo library, not just specific configurations or edge cases, as long as they make use of the `NewResponseFromRequest` function. Version 1.0.0-alpha-1 contains a patch for the issue.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

GLPI is a free asset and IT management software package. Starting in version 9.1.0 and prior to version 10.0.21, an unauthorized user with an API access can read all knowledge base entries. Users should upgrade to 10.0.21 to receive a patch.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N