Comparison Overview

Cicada Partners

VS

TMF Group

Cicada Partners

None
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 650 and 699

The team provides industry-leading third-party underwriting and pool management on DeFi Protocols, risk structuring, and institutional risk advisory services.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

TMF Group

Luna ArenA, Herikerbergweg 238, , Amsterdam , North Holland, NL, 1101 CM
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

We provide employee, financial and legal administration so that firms can invest and operate safely around the world. TMF Group is a single global team with over 11,000 colleagues in more than 125 offices across 87 jurisdictions, covering 92% of world GDP and 95% of FDI inflow. We bring common culture and ways of working, investing heavily in our people and platform to provide a high level of quality and security to our clients. We exist to give clients a global solution to what otherwise requires many local providers, each with their individual operational complexity and risk. Our clients include the majority of the Fortune Global 500, FTSE 100 and top 300 private equity firms. We see ourselves as a partner to them, keeping them on top of complex rules and regulations in the countries where they are active. We recognise that what we do is critical to our clients’ reputation and integrity. That is why we have made flawless service our single obsession. Great service starts with our people, so colleague and client engagement are the two measures we care most about, driving our management agenda and investment.

NAICS: 52
NAICS Definition: Finance and Insurance
Employees: 10,031
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cicada-partners.jpeg
Cicada Partners
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/tmf-group.jpeg
TMF Group
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
Cicada Partners
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
TMF Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cicada Partners in 2025.

Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for TMF Group in 2025.

Incident History — Cicada Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cicada Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — TMF Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TMF Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cicada-partners.jpeg
Cicada Partners
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Ransomware, VMware ESXi exploitation
Motivation: Financial gain, Data extortion
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tmf-group.jpeg
TMF Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

TMF Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cicada Partners company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cicada Partners company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas TMF Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, TMF Group company and Cicada Partners company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Cicada Partners company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while TMF Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither TMF Group company nor Cicada Partners company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither TMF Group company nor Cicada Partners company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Cicada Partners company nor TMF Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

TMF Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Cicada Partners company.

TMF Group company employs more people globally than Cicada Partners company, reflecting its scale as a Financial Services.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cicada Partners nor TMF Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

In GnuPG through 2.4.8, if a signed message has \f at the end of a plaintext line, an adversary can construct a modified message that places additional text after the signed material, such that signature verification of the modified message succeeds (although an "invalid armor" message is printed during verification). This is related to use of \f as a marker to denote truncation of a long plaintext line.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N
Description

A vulnerability has been found in jackq XCMS up to 3fab5342cc509945a7ce1b8ec39d19f701b89261. Affected is the function Upload of the file Admin/Home/Controller/ProductImageController.class.php of the component Backend. Such manipulation of the argument File leads to unrestricted upload. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. This product takes the approach of rolling releases to provide continious delivery. Therefore, version details for affected and updated releases are not available. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.8
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.1
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1 when using the PDO PostgreSQL driver with PDO::ATTR_EMULATE_PREPARES enabled, an invalid character sequence (such as \x99) in a prepared statement parameter may cause the quoting function PQescapeStringConn to return NULL, leading to a null pointer dereference in pdo_parse_params() function. This may lead to crashes (segmentation fault) and affect the availability of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
Description

In PHP versions:8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1, a heap buffer overflow occurs in array_merge() when the total element count of packed arrays exceeds 32-bit limits or HT_MAX_SIZE, due to an integer overflow in the precomputation of element counts using zend_hash_num_elements(). This may lead to memory corruption or crashes and affect the integrity and availability of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
Description

In PHP versions:8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1, the getimagesize() function may leak uninitialized heap memory into the APPn segments (e.g., APP1) when reading images in multi-chunk mode (such as via php://filter). This occurs due to a bug in php_read_stream_all_chunks() that overwrites the buffer without advancing the pointer, leaving tail bytes uninitialized. This may lead to information disclosure of sensitive heap data and affect the confidentiality of the target server.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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