Comparison Overview

Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors

VS

Halebury

Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors

1 Liverpool Gardens, Worthing, BN11 1TF, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27

Providing legal services to companies and individuals with client care and excellent service taken as read. The team at Bennett Griffin always ensure you are advised of any alternative approaches to your matter and about the best approach to take. We tell you how much we expect your matter to cost and keep you up to date with costs as the matter progresses. Our aim is to get the result you want to achieve whether it be the sale or purchase of a business or the drafting of your will, or a miriad of other legal services. The information providing on our LinkedIn page is for general guidance only and is not intended to be complete legal advice. To discuss the specific application of the law in a particular situation please contact us.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 52
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Halebury

38 Chancery Lane, London, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

Halebury is about change. Change to the legal profession, and change for its clients. We believe positive change comes through agility and vigour, experience and expertise. Above all, through engaged and empowered senior in-house lawyers, focused on your day-to-day challenges that matter, dedicated to delivering solutions that support your strategies efficiently and effectively. We are Halebury and we are in the business of law, the business of business, the business of transformation.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 3
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bennett-griffin-llp.jpeg
Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors
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/halebury.jpeg
Halebury
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
Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Halebury
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Halebury in 2025.

Incident History — Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Halebury cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bennett-griffin-llp.jpeg
Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/halebury.jpeg
Halebury
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Halebury company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Halebury company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company has not reported any.

In the current year, Halebury company and Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Halebury company nor Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Halebury company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Halebury company nor Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company nor Halebury company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Halebury company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company.

Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors company employs more people globally than Halebury company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bennett Griffin LLP Solicitors nor Halebury holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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
Description

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: 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