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

Comparison Overview

Cisco PartnersCisco Partners
VS
HGSHGS
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

Tasman Dr, San Jose, 95134, US

Last Update: 24/01/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

The official LinkedIn page for the Cisco Partner Ecosystem--with news, networking, and information for #CiscoPartners and #CiscoDistributors. Cisco Partner Summit 2025 | November 3 – 5 | San Diego, CA | #CiscoPS25

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
HGS

HGS

HGS USA Corporate Headquarters , Chicago, IL , US

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://hgs.cx/
748/1000Moderate

A global leader in optimizing the customer experience lifecycle, digital transformation, and business process management, HGS is helping its clients become more competitive every day. HGS combines automation, analytics, and artificial intelligence with deep domain exper...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:28,465
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

-
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
HGS

HGS

-
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 Cisco Partners in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for HGS in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Cisco Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cisco Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

HGS 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...
Cisco Partners

Cisco Partners

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
HGS

HGS

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8