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

Comparison Overview

BCG on Digital and TechnologyBCG on Digital and Technology
VS
DeloitteDeloitte
BCG on Digital and Technology

BCG on Digital and Technology

200 Pier Four Blvd, Boston, 02210, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
767/1000Fair

The ever-shifting conditions of technological innovation, data proliferation, and disruptive market forces are challenging organizations to prioritize digital transformation initiatives to maintain competitive advantage at unprecedented rates. Whether the challenge is...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Deloitte

Deloitte

Worldwide, Worldwide, OO

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.deloitte.com/
809/1000Good

Deloitte drives progress. Our firms around the world help clients become leaders wherever they choose to compete. Deloitte invests in outstanding people of diverse talents and backgrounds and empowers them to achieve more than they could elsewhere. Our work combines adv...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:516,523
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BCG on Digital and Technology

BCG on Digital and Technology

-
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
Deloitte

Deloitte

-
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)

No incidents recorded for BCG on Digital and Technology in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Deloitte in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BCG on Digital and Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BCG on Digital and Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Deloitte 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...
BCG on Digital and Technology

BCG on Digital and Technology

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Deloitte

Deloitte

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEL3932939091625
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEL716053025
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STADEL1777062830

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8