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

Comparison Overview

Bain & CompanyBain & Company
VS
XeroxXerox
Bain & Company

Bain & Company

131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, MA, US, 02116

Last Update: 08/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bain.com
768/1000Fair

Bain & Company is a global consultancy that helps the world’s most ambitious change makers define the future. Across 65 cities in 40 countries, we work alongside our clients as one team with a shared ambition to achieve extraordinary results, outperform the competitio...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:22,861
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Xerox

Xerox

201 Merritt 7, Norwalk, Connecticut, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.xerox.com
590/1000Very Poor

Xerox is a global technology company with more than 120 years of innovation leadership. We design, manufacture, deliver, and support print, IT, and digital services for nearly 200,000 clients worldwide. Our integrated, AI-powered portfolio includes managed and product...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:47,989
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bain & Company

Bain & Company

-
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
Xerox

Xerox

-
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)

Bain & Company has 27.01% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Xerox in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Bain & Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bain & Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Xerox 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...
Bain & Company

Bain & Company

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAIBOS1776126313
Xerox

Xerox

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
XERTEX1781864792
🔒 Incident : Breach
XER336072725
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
YAMXER1769102615

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8