Comparison Overview

Avanade

VS

Indra

Avanade

1191 2nd Ave, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Avanade is the world’s leading expert on Microsoft. Trusted by over 7,000 clients worldwide, we deliver AI-driven solutions that unlock the full potential of people and technology, optimize operations, foster innovation and drive growth. As Microsoft’s Global SI Partner we combine global scale with local expertise in AI, cloud, data analytics, cybersecurity, and ERP to design solutions that prioritize people and drive meaningful impact. We champion diversity, inclusion, and sustainability, ensuring our work benefits society and business.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 17,197
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Indra

Avda. Bruselas, 35, Madrid, 28108, ES
Last Update: 2026-01-18

Indra Group (https://www.indragroup.com/) is the foremost Spanish multinational and one of the leading European companies that focus on defence and advanced technologies. It stands at the forefront of the defence, space, air traffic management, mobility, and Information Technology businesses through Minsait, and it integrates its sovereign AI, cybersecurity and cyberdefence capabilities into IndraMind. Indra Group is paving the way to a more secure and better-connected future through innovative solutions, trusted relationships and the very best talent. Sustainability is an integral part of its strategy and culture in order to overcome current and future social and environmental challenges. At the close of the 2024 financial year, Indra Group posted revenues of €4.843 billion and had a local presence in 46 countries and business operations in over 140 countries.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 39,371
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
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/indra.jpeg
Indra
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
Avanade
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Indra
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 Avanade in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Indra in 2026.

Incident History — Avanade (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avanade cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Indra (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Indra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/indra.jpeg
Indra
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Avanade company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Indra company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Indra company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Avanade company.

In the current year, Indra company and Avanade company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Indra company nor Avanade company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Indra company nor Avanade company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Indra company nor Avanade company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Avanade company nor Indra company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Avanade company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Indra company.

Indra company employs more people globally than Avanade company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Avanade nor Indra holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Avanade nor Indra 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