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

Comparison Overview

Capita Local Public ServiceCapita Local Public Service
VS
Stefanini GroupStefanini Group
Capita Local Public Service

Capita Local Public Service

71 Victoria Street, London, London, SW1H 0XA, GB

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.capita.com
751/1000Fair

We are the local public services business within Capita plc. With over 25 years’ experience, we are the leading provider of services to the local public sector. We form trusted partnerships with local authorities to help improve efficiency, raise service quality, reduc...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:153
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Stefanini Group

Stefanini Group

Avenida Eusébio Matoso 1375, São Paulo, 05423-905, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://stefanini.com
787/1000Fair

Global Tech Consulting Company All in One. Stefanini is a Brazilian multinational company with 37 years of experience and presence in 41 countries. With more than 35,000 employees, we co-create solutions for a better future, driving digital transformation with a focu...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:22,655
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Capita Local Public Service

Capita Local Public Service

-
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
Stefanini Group

Stefanini Group

-
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 Capita Local Public Service in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Stefanini Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Capita Local Public Service (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Capita Local Public Service cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Stefanini Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Stefanini Group 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...
Capita Local Public Service

Capita Local Public Service

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Stefanini Group

Stefanini Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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