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

Comparison Overview

C2C - Close to ConsumerC2C - Close to Consumer
VS
TaskUsTaskUs
C2C - Close to Consumer

C2C - Close to Consumer

R. Bela Cintra, 643, São Paulo, 01310-000, BR

Last Update: 26/01/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

A C2C – Close to Consumer é especializada na contratação e administração inteligente de mão de obra para as áreas de marketing, trade marketing e vendas. Desenvolvemos soluções personalizadas para quem busca competitividade no mercado, gerando resultados efetivos.

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:528
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TaskUs

TaskUs

1650 Independence Dr, New Braunfels, 78132, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://www.taskus.com/
560/1000Very Poor

TaskUs delivers outsourced digital services that power the companies shaping the future. By combining specialized human talent and intelligent technology, we solve complex operational challenges for global category leaders within AI, autonomous vehicles (AV), robotics, ...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:42,696
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
C2C - Close to Consumer

C2C - Close to Consumer

-
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
TaskUs

TaskUs

-
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)

No incidents recorded for C2C - Close to Consumer in 2026.

Incidents

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

TaskUs has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - C2C - Close to Consumer (X = Date, Y = Severity)

C2C - Close to Consumer 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 - TaskUs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TaskUs 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...
C2C - Close to Consumer

C2C - Close to Consumer

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TaskUs

TaskUs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MARCOIDISTAS1770173590
🔒 Incident : Breach
COI739060625
🔒 Incident : Breach
COI5902859091725

FAQ

Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer company and TaskUs company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer and TaskUs, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer and TaskUs, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - C2C - Close to Consumer or TaskUs ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - C2C - Close to Consumer or TaskUs ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer and TaskUs, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between C2C - Close to Consumer and TaskUs, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/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
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
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:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8