Comparison Overview

Capita

VS

Verizon

Capita

2 Kingdom Street, First Floor, London, England, GB, W2 6BD
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 550 and 599

Capita is an outsourcer, helping clients across the public and private sectors run complex business processes more efficiently, creating better consumer experiences. Operating across eight countries, Capita’s 34,000 colleagues support primarily UK and European clients with people-based services underpinned by market-leading technology. We’re a vital support service for our clients, enabling the everyday interactions that we expect to run seamlessly, to run seamlessly. A publicly listed business with adjusted revenue of £2.4bn, Capita’s areas of focus are Central Government, Local Public Service, Defence, Learning, Fire & Security, Contact Centres and Pensions Solutions. We’re embracing change to respond to the ever-changing needs of society, creating better outcomes for all our stakeholders.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 25,516
Subsidiaries: 8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Verizon

One Verizon Way, Basking Ridge, NJ, US, 07920-1097
Last Update: 2026-01-21

We get you. You want more out of a career. A place to share your ideas freely — even if they’re daring or different. Where the true you can learn, grow, and thrive. You’ll find all that here. Because we empower you. We power and empower how people live, work and play by connecting them to what brings them joy. The same is true inside our walls. We do what we love — driving innovation, creativity, and impact in the world. And wherever you go, we got your back. This is a team sport. Our V Team is a community of people who anticipate, lead, and believe that listening is where learning begins. In crisis and in celebration, we come together— lifting our communities and building trust in how we show up, everywhere & always. Want in? Join the V Team Life.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 101,542
Subsidiaries: 12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
4

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/capita.jpeg
Capita
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/verizon.jpeg
Verizon
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
Capita
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Verizon
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Capita in 2026.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Verizon in 2026.

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

Capita cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Verizon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/capita.jpeg
Capita
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 4/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Access to internal Microsoft Office 365 apps
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2023
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Malicious File Download (Phishing/Social Engineering)
Motivation: Financial Gain (Ransom Demand, Data Exfiltration for Leverage)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/verizon.jpeg
Verizon
Incidents

Date Detected: 2/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unsecured API
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Influence Operations, Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Network Penetration
Motivation: Espionage, Influence Operations
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Verizon company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Capita company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Verizon company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Capita company.

In the current year, Verizon company and Capita company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Capita company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Verizon company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Verizon company and Capita company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Verizon company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Capita company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Verizon company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Capita company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Verizon company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Capita company.

Verizon company employs more people globally than Capita company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Capita nor Verizon holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N