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

Comparison Overview

Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No ComparisonCatalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison
VS
LexisNexisLexisNexis
Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

Katy , 77493, US

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
492/1000Critical

We are your Revenue Partner. Not Just A Billing Company. - If we could increase your revenue by 10%, is that worth 1 hour of your time? - Is transparency missing from the relationship with your current biller? - Are you absolutely confident you’re collecting every dolla...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:23
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

230 Park Avenue, New York City, 10017, US

Last Update: 23/06/2026

View Profile

LexisNexis is a leading innovator of private, secure, and authoritative Legal AI solutions that help legal and business professionals draft full documents with ease, make informed decisions faster, and deliver outstanding work and improved outcomes, all powered by trust...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:10,705
Subsidiaries:72
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

-
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
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison in 2026.

Incidents

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

LexisNexis has 185.71% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

LexisNexis 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...
Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
CAT1771961762
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
KORVANCAT1770667690
LexisNexis

LexisNexis

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
RELLEX1772562253
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1772555037
🔒 Incident : Breach
LEX1782211793

FAQ

Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison company and LexisNexis company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison and LexisNexis, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison and LexisNexis, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison or LexisNexis ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison or LexisNexis ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison and LexisNexis, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Catalyst RCM - Better Results. No Comparison and LexisNexis, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA