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

Comparison Overview

BPO Process OutsourcingBPO Process Outsourcing
VS
KonectaKonecta
BPO Process Outsourcing

BPO Process Outsourcing

D - 56, 2nd Floor, Red FM Road, , Noida, 201301, IN

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.ascentbpo.com/
630/1000Poor

We are one of the fastest growing BPO, Call Centre & Data Entry Outsourcing Company in India and are gaining a high reputation in the market as a reliable BPO data entry service provider. We offer services like data entry projects, call center services (inbound/outbound...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:11
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Konecta

Konecta

Edificio Los Cubos, C. de Albacete, 5, Cdad. Lineal, Madrid, Madrid, ES, 28027

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.konecta.com
794/1000Fair

Konecta is a leading innovative global service provider in customer management business process outsourcing, with 120,000 passionate employees working in 30 languages across 4 continents and 26 countries. Focusing on the unique needs and opportunities of each industry, ...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:53,747
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
BPO Process Outsourcing

BPO Process Outsourcing

-
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
Konecta

Konecta

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

BPO Process Outsourcing has 41.52% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Konecta in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - BPO Process Outsourcing (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BPO Process Outsourcing cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Konecta cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
BPO Process Outsourcing

BPO Process Outsourcing

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ADOBPO1775190288
Konecta

Konecta

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8