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

Comparison Overview

AtlasAtlas
VS
DeloitteDeloitte
Atlas

Atlas

400 Connell Drive, Berkeley Heights, 07922, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
740/1000Moderate

Atlas is a 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹, 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻-𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗱, 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺 that partners with our clients to solve complex challenges, driving operational excellence and delivering impactful solutions. 𝗧𝗼𝗴𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗜...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:438
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Deloitte

Deloitte

Worldwide, Worldwide, OO

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.deloitte.com/
809/1000Good

Deloitte drives progress. Our firms around the world help clients become leaders wherever they choose to compete. Deloitte invests in outstanding people of diverse talents and backgrounds and empowers them to achieve more than they could elsewhere. Our work combines adv...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:516,523
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Atlas

Atlas

-
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
Deloitte

Deloitte

-
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 Atlas in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Deloitte in 2026.

Incidents

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

Atlas cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Deloitte 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...
Atlas

Atlas

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ATL20751122
Deloitte

Deloitte

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
DEL3932939091625
🔒 Incident : Breach
DEL716053025
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
STADEL1777062830

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA