What is the official website of Avvo for Lawyers ?

The official website of Avvo for Lawyers is http://rb.avvo.com/AvvoLawyersLI.

What is Avvo for Lawyers's cybersecurity risk score?

Avvo for Lawyers has an AI-generated cybersecurity risk score of 751 out of 1000, indicating a Fair security posture according to Rankiteo's assessment.

How many security incidents has Avvo for Lawyers experienced?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers currently holds 0 security badges, indicating that no recognized compliance certifications are currently verified for the organization.

Has Avvo for Lawyers been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers has not been affected by any supply chain cyber incidents, and no incident IDs are currently listed for the organization.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have SOC 2 Type 1 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers is not certified under SOC 2 Type 1.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have SOC 2 Type 2 certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers does not hold a SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Does Avvo for Lawyers comply with GDPR ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers is not listed as GDPR compliant.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have PCI DSS certification ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers does not currently maintain PCI DSS compliance.

Does Avvo for Lawyers comply with HIPAA ?

According to Rankiteo, Avvo for Lawyers is not compliant with HIPAA regulations.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have ISO 27001 certification ?

According to Rankiteo,Avvo for Lawyers is not certified under ISO 27001, indicating the absence of a formally recognized information security management framework.

Which industry does Avvo for Lawyers operate in ?

Avvo for Lawyers operates primarily in the Legal Services industry.

How many employees does Avvo for Lawyers have ?

Avvo for Lawyers employs approximately None employees people worldwide.

Does Avvo for Lawyers own any subsidiaries ?

Avvo for Lawyers presently has no subsidiaries across any sectors.

How many LinkedIn followers does Avvo for Lawyers have ?

Avvo for Lawyers's official LinkedIn profile has approximately 428 followers.

What is the NAICS classification code for Avvo for Lawyers ?

Avvo for Lawyers is classified under the NAICS code 5411, which corresponds to Legal Services.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have a Crunchbase profile ?

No, Avvo for Lawyers does not have a profile on Crunchbase.

Does Avvo for Lawyers have a LinkedIn profile ?

Yes, Avvo for Lawyers maintains an official LinkedIn profile, which is actively utilized for branding and talent engagement, which can be accessed here: https://www.linkedin.com/company/avvo-for-lawyers.

How many cybersecurity incidents has Avvo for Lawyers experienced ?

As of August 11, 2026, Rankiteo reports that Avvo for Lawyers has experienced 1 cybersecurity incidents.

How many peer or competitor companies does Avvo for Lawyers have ?

Avvo for Lawyers has an estimated 7,959 peer or competitor companies worldwide.

What types of cybersecurity incidents has Avvo for Lawyers faced ?

Incident Types: The types of cybersecurity incidents that have occurred include Data Leak.

NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop

WindowsmacOSLinux

Download

Badge your company to reduce your risk score and your cyber insurance costs!

Link verified badges to your company page to build trust with insurers and customers.

Apply now and get your badge!

Internal validation & live display

Insurers and partners see a safer profile

Faster underwriting decisions

Trusted by insurers. Chosen by leaders.

Proud contributor to the Society of Actuaries.

Boost Score +25 with badge (5 left)

751

/1000

Fair

776

/1000

Fair

Avvo for Lawyers Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

avvo.com

Add Your Compliance Badge

Avvo for Lawyers is dedicated to helping great lawyers get more business. Increase your network and learn the latest tips on how to grow and manage your solo and small firm more effectively.

AL A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Scoring History

Avvo for Lawyers CyberSecurity News & History

Past Incidents

Attack Types

Entity

Type

Severity

Impact

Seen

Blog Details

Supply Chain Source

Incident Details

View

Avvo for Lawyers

Data Leak

12/2019

AVV224324123

Loading…

A.I.

AL Company Scoring based on AI Models

Cyber Incidents Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction

Incident Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

A.I Risk Score Likelihood 3 - 6 - 9 months

Actual

Prediction A

Prediction B

Prediction C

Prediction D

A.I. Risk Score Predictions locked

Access Monitoring Plan

Loading…

Underwriter Stats for AL

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Avvo for Lawyers in 2026.

Incidents vs All-Companies Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Avvo for Lawyers in 2026.

Incident Types AL vs Legal Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Avvo for Lawyers in 2026.

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

Loading…

SUBSIDIARY

Avvo for Lawyers Subsidiaries

AL

Legal Services

Website: http://rb.avvo.com/AvvoLawyersLI

Company Size: None employees

Internet BrandsSoftware Development

iMatrixAdvertising Services

WebMDTechnology, Information and Internet

DemandforceSoftware Development

FindLaw, part of Thomson ReutersLegal Services

Ngage Live ChatTechnology, Information and Internet

Martindale-AvvoLegal Services

CaptorraSoftware Development

Martindale-HubbellLegal Services

Fodor's TravelBook and Periodical Publishing

AvvoLegal Services

Loading…

Avvo for Lawyers Similar Companies

Loading…

NEWS

Avvo for Lawyers CyberSecurity News

Latest updates, reports, and threat intel affecting the global network.

February 02, 2024 06:10 AM

Top 25 LegalShield Competitors and Alternatives

Check out competitors like Martindale-Avvo, LegalZoom, and Rocket Lawyer. Affordable legal services and identity theft protection are just a click away.

Read Article

July 09, 2018 07:00 AM

Avvo Legal Services To Be Shut Down | LawSites

Legal directory Avvo is shutting down its controversial Avvo Legal Services, a service that provides fixed-fee, limited-scope legal services...

Read Article

Loading…

CVE

Latest

Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

CVE-2026-8718

SUMMARY

tls_opt_dtls_peer_connection_id_value_get() in subsys/net/lib/sockets/sockets_tls.c, which handles getsockopt(SOL_TLS, TLS_DTLS_PEER_CID_VALUE), passed the caller-supplied optval directly to mbedtls_ssl_get_peer_cid() without verifying the buffer was at least MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX (default 32) bytes. mbedtls_ssl_get_peer_cid() copies the peer-negotiated DTLS Connection ID (length 1..MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX) into that buffer without a destination-size parameter, so a caller-supplied optlen smaller than the CID causes a write of up to 31 bytes past the buffer end. In CONFIG_USERSPACE builds the getsockopt syscall verifier (z_vrfy_zsock_getsockopt) bounce-buffers the user's optval into a kernel allocation of exactly optlen bytes (k_usermode_alloc_from_copy -> z_thread_malloc), so an unprivileged user thread that passes a small optlen on a connected DTLS socket with Connection ID enabled induces a kernel-heap buffer overflow, with the overflowing content being the remote peer's CID. The defect requires CONFIG_MBEDTLS_SSL_DTLS_CONNECTION_ID, an established DTLS session with a negotiated peer CID, and (for the kernel-crossing case) CONFIG_USERSPACE. Introduced when the TLS_DTLS_CID option was added (v3.5.0). The fix rejects callers whose optlen is below MBEDTLS_SSL_CID_OUT_LEN_MAX with -EINVAL.

Published

Date2026-08-10

Updated

Date2026-08-10

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.4)

cvss3

Base Score: 8.4

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H

Impact Score

5.8

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-48161

SUMMARY

react18-use is a React 19 use hook shim. Between 2026-05-19 01:07:01 and 2026-05-19 15:20:43, the default branch contained malicious commits 7b79148d1495a2505f9277da295a98cf176f4496 through 7b79148d1495a2505f9277da295a98cf176f4496 that executed remote attacker-controlled code on developer machines during `npm install`. The commits were removed by force-push, but local clones, forks, and direct-SHA URLs may still contain them, and `npm install` against an affected checkout will still execute the code today. The package was not published to npm. `src/install.js` was added and wired into the `postinstall` script. It fetched a JavaScript payload from an attacker-controlled HTTPS endpoint (configurable via an environment variable), disabled TLS verification, and evaluated the response as code with `require` available. Execution was deliberately skipped on CI and cloud/serverless environments, targeting developer workstations. The second-stage payload was attacker-hosted and cannot be reconstructed. Assume full compromise of anything reachable from a Node process with the user's permissions. Those who ran `npm install` against an affected checkout on a developer machine on or after 2026-05-19 01:07:01 should treat the machine as compromised, rotate every credential the machine could reach, audit account activity since 2026-05-19 01:07:01, and clean local clones.

Published

Date2026-08-10

Updated

Date2026-08-10

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

cvss4

Base Score: 9.3

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

https://github.com/dai-shi/react18-use/security/advisories/GHSA-32xh-vg5f-64fm

CVE-2026-11812

SUMMARY

The UpdateHub management subsystem (subsys/mgmt/updatehub/updatehub.c) drives every update operation through a single file-scope ctx structure that holds the CoAP block context, payload buffer, status code, socket, and a one-element poll-fd array fds[1]. Access to ctx was not serialized, and prepare_fds() wrote ctx.fds[ctx.nfds] and incremented ctx.nfds with no bounds check. Two independent paths mutate ctx concurrently: the background autohandler running on the system workqueue, and user-triggered operations reached through the updatehub run shell command, direct API calls, or — since the operations are exposed as syscalls — userspace threads. When a second flow enters prepare_fds() while ctx.nfds is already 1, the write lands one element past the array; by struct layout it overlaps the adjacent ctx.sock/ctx.nfds members. More broadly, the unsynchronized sharing lets two flows interleave connection setup and teardown, double-closing a socket descriptor or scribbling the shared buffers. The result is corruption of the update subsystem's internal state and denial of service of the firmware-update path; the out-of-bounds write is contained within the ctx structure and there is no demonstrated path to memory outside it or to code execution. Triggering requires a local actor able to invoke update operations (or, with CONFIG_USERSPACE, an unprivileged userspace thread) and to win a timing race against the background handler; remote peers cannot control the race timing. The fix serializes the entry points with a mutex and adds a bounds check to prepare_fds().

Published

Date2026-08-10

Updated

Date2026-08-10

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.5)

cvss3

Base Score: 2.5

Complexity: HIGH

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Impact Score

1.4

Exploitability

REFERENCES

CVE-2026-11811

SUMMARY

The UpdateHub over-the-air update client's start_coap_client() in subsys/mgmt/updatehub/updatehub.c leaks the CoAP/DTLS socket descriptor on its connection-setup failure paths. The shared error: cleanup gated socket closing on a ret > 0 flag, but ret was set to -1 immediately after the socket was created, so when zsock_setsockopt() (DTLS) or zsock_connect() subsequently failed the gate was false and cleanup_connection() was never called. The open descriptor in the global ctx.sock was then overwritten by the next attempt, permanently leaking it from the socket / net_context pool until reboot. The failing setup path is reached every time the OTA client tries to contact the UpdateHub server and the connection cannot be established — driven automatically by the periodic autohandler() poll (and on demand via the updatehub_probe()/updatehub_update() API or the updatehub run shell command). The DTLS handshake/connect outcome is influenceable by a network or on-path attacker who drops, resets, or otherwise disrupts traffic to the server, and also fails naturally whenever the server is unreachable. Each failed attempt permanently leaks one descriptor; once the shared socket pool is exhausted, networking degrades device-wide until the device is rebooted, a denial-of-service condition. Severity is low because the leak rate is bounded by the configured OTA poll interval (default once per 24 hours), the effect is gradual and recovered by reboot, and only builds with the UpdateHub client enabled are affected. There is no memory-corruption, information-disclosure, or authentication impact.

Published

Date2026-08-10

Updated

Date2026-08-10

RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)

cvss3

Base Score: 3.7

Complexity: HIGH

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Impact Score

1.4

Exploitability

2.2

REFERENCES

CVE-2025-30241

SUMMARY

Certain web interface components in affected TP-Link Aginet devices do not validate and sanitize user-supplied input properly before passing it to system-level command execution functions. An authenticated adjacent attacker may inject specially crafted input to execute arbitrary operation system commands with elevated privileges. Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary system commands, potentially leading to full device compromise.

Published

Date2026-08-10

Updated

Date2026-08-10

RISK INFORMATION (Score: )

cvss4

Base Score: 8.6

Complexity: LOW

CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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

Impact Score

Exploitability

REFERENCES

https://www.tp-link.com/us/support/faq/5239/

Loading…

API

Access Data Using Our API

Get company history

curl -i -X GET 'https://api.rankiteo.com/underwriter-getcompany-history?
linkedin_id=axa' -H 'apikey: YOUR_API_KEY_HERE'

Try It API Documentation Rapid

MEASURE

What Do We Measure ?

Incident

Finding

Grade

Digital Assets

Every week, Rankiteo analyzes billions of signals to give organizations a sharper, faster view of emerging risks. With deeper, more actionable intelligence at their fingertips, security teams can outpace threat actors, respond instantly to Zero-Day attacks, and dramatically shrink their risk exposure window.

These are some of the factors we use to calculate the overall score:

Network SecurityIdentify exposed access points, detect misconfigured SSL certificates, and uncover vulnerabilities across the network infrastructure.

SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)Gain visibility into the software components used within an organization to detect vulnerabilities, manage risk, and ensure supply chain security.

CMDB (Configuration Management Database)Monitor and manage all IT assets and their configurations to ensure accurate, real-time visibility across the company's technology environment.

Threat IntelligenceLeverage real-time insights on active threats, malware campaigns, and emerging vulnerabilities to proactively defend against evolving cyberattacks.

Rankiteo

By Rankiteo

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

View on G2.com

Rankiteo is a unified scoring and risk platform that analyzes billions of signals weekly to help organizations gain faster, more actionable insights into emerging threats. Empowering teams to outpace adversaries and reduce exposure.

View latest plans →View all security reports →

MILESTONEG

Users
Love Us

Loading…