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

Comparison Overview

Barrington James Board & Executive PartnersBarrington James Board & Executive Partners
VS
Robert HalfRobert Half
Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

Crawley , RH10 1WW, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile

Board and Executive Partners is a Barrington James company. We leverage the technology, reach, and resources of a large organization while delivering to clients with greater speed and agility than most traditional (generalist) search firms. Our team has low turnover, en...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Robert Half

Robert Half

2884 Sand Hill Road Suite 200, Menlo Park, 94025, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.roberthalf.com
713/1000Moderate

🔒 At Robert Half, we prioritize your security—if you believe you've encountered a scam or fraudulent recruiter, please report it immediately to https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/fraud-alert. All Robert Half recruiters communicate using their corporate email address, end...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:27,288
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

-
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
Robert Half

Robert Half

-
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 Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Barrington James Board & Executive Partners in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Robert Half in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Barrington James Board & Executive Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Barrington James Board & Executive Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Robert Half (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Robert Half 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...
Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

Barrington James Board & Executive Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Robert Half

Robert Half

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROB152424722
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROB1059072825

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58489
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2  state  value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58486
SUMMARY

HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time, collaborative, markdown notes application. Prior to version 1.11.0, HedgeDoc was vulnerable to a YAML alias bomb due to unsafe processing of the note frontmatter. HedgeDoc parsed frontmatter with js-yaml.load (js-yaml v3) via @hedgedoc/meta-marked, which resolved YAML anchor aliases. A compact malicious payload could therefore expand into a huge object structure, consuming excessive CPU. This expansion ran on every request to the publish view (/s/<shortid>) and, when placed under the opengraph key, the editor view (/<noteId>). A ten-level alias bomb could block the single Node.js event loop for roughly 235 seconds per request, causing concurrent requests to hang or drop and rendering the instance unavailable (DoS). Because the note was stored in the database, the impact survived process restarts until the note was removed. toobusy-js did not reliably mitigate the worst cases, as the event loop was saturated before the middleware could respond. This issue was fixed in version 1.11.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58102
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow a heap out-of-bounds read via a long certificate extension OID in hv_exts. When building the extension hash (via extensions(), extensions_by_long_name(), extensions_by_oid(), or has_extension_oid()), the code passes OBJ_obj2txt()'s return value as the hash-key length; because that value is the OID's full text length rather than the bytes written to the fixed-size buffer (129 bytes), an OID whose text is longer than the 129-byte buffer causes a read past the allocation, exposing adjacent heap memory as the returned hash key. extensions_by_name() uses the static shortname path and is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-58101
SUMMARY

Crypt::OpenSSL::X509 versions before 2.1.3 for Perl allow denial of service via NULL pointer dereference. X509V3_EXT_d2i(ext) returns NULL when an extension's DER value fails to parse. basicC, ia5string, and auth_att dereference its result without a NULL check. keyid_data also dereferences akid->keyid, which is NULL for an empty AKI SEQUENCE (DER 30 00) even when the parse succeeds. A caller invoking an affected helper on an extension from an untrusted certificate triggers a SIGSEGV that crashes the Perl process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57856
SUMMARY

Cockpit CMS contains a path traversal vulnerability in the Bucket file storage API (/system/buckets/api). The api() method in modules/System/Controller/Buckets.php sanitizes the bucket name with preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z0-9-_\\.]/','', $bucket), which permits '..' and '../' sequences. The sanitized value is interpolated into a Flysystem path as uploads://buckets/{bucket}. Flysystem's WhitespacePathNormalizer resolves 'buckets/..' to the empty string (the uploads storage root) without raising PathTraversalDetected because the '..' has a preceding component to consume. An authenticated low-privileged user can send a crafted request with a '../' bucket name to list, upload, and delete files across all buckets, including those belonging to other users or roles

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-13
UPDATED
Date2026-07-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8