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

Comparison Overview

CloudstaffCloudstaff
VS
TaskUsTaskUs
Cloudstaff

Cloudstaff

Sydney, New South Wales, AU, 2000

Last Update: 12/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.cloudstaff.com/
772/1000Fair

We are Cloudstaff, the remote staffing pioneer that combines ethical outsourcing with enterprise-grade people tech. We connect businesses embarking on remarkable growth with the world’s top talent from our pool of over 1M professionals. Brilliant careers for your future...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:4,691
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TaskUs

TaskUs

1650 Independence Dr, New Braunfels, 78132, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://www.taskus.com/
560/1000Very Poor

TaskUs delivers outsourced digital services that power the companies shaping the future. By combining specialized human talent and intelligent technology, we solve complex operational challenges for global category leaders within AI, autonomous vehicles (AV), robotics, ...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:42,696
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cloudstaff

Cloudstaff

-
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
TaskUs

TaskUs

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cloudstaff in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

TaskUs has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Cloudstaff cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

TaskUs 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...
Cloudstaff

Cloudstaff

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TaskUs

TaskUs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MARCOIDISTAS1770173590
🔒 Incident : Breach
COI739060625
🔒 Incident : Breach
COI5902859091725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-86304
SUMMARY

MojoX::Authentication versions before 0.006 for Perl allow SAML authentication bypass because parse_assertion builds Net::SAML2::Binding::POST without a trust anchor. parse_assertion in MojoX::Authentication::Model::SAML2 calls Net::SAML2::Binding::POST->new with no cacert, cert_text or anchors argument, then passes the returned XML to Net::SAML2::Protocol::Assertion->new_from_xml with the IdP signing certificate as cacert. In Net::SAML2 before 0.86 that certificate guards only encrypted assertions, so the signature on an unencrypted assertion is checked against the certificate the response itself carries. An attacker starts a SAML login, then posts a response signed with a certificate of their own. The audience, InResponseTo and timestamp checks that follow are all satisfiable by the attacker, so the response authenticates any NameID it carries.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86232
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in itsourcecode Sales and Inventory System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /pages/sup_del.php?type=supplier. Executing a manipulation of the argument ID can lead to sql injection. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86231
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in mwiede jsch up to 2.28.5. Affected is the function getRevokedKeys of the file src/main/java/com/jcraft/jsch/KnownHosts.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument known_hosts results in improper check for certificate revocation. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.28.6 is able to address this issue. The patch is named 194a2f76a5c0f1c3f778565be3fd66bcafc42d23. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-86228
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in JeecgBoot up to 3.9.3. This vulnerability affects the function exportXls of the file jeecg-boot/jeecg-boot-module/jeecg-boot-module-airag/src/main/java/org/jeecg/modules/airag/llm/controller/AiragModelController.java. Such manipulation of the argument credential leads to improper access controls. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Upgrading to version 3.9.5 is able to resolve this issue. The name of the patch is a2be896f753936956ee6863b632b8e5a0231345c. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86227
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in valkey-io valkey up to 9.0.5/9.1.1. This affects the function kvstoreGetHashtable of the file src/kvstore.c. This manipulation of the argument didx causes out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Patch name: 4691888e7fab3df128f0bde5750c9fde2ae552fa. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. Exploitation requires cluster mode plus attacker-controlled dump.rdb at startup (data-dir write access, replication feed, or a stored crafted RDB) - an attacker-position DoS at boot, not network pre-auth. The issue report was closed stating it "is worth fixing for the sake of memory safety… but I don't think it meets our bar for a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-06
UPDATED
Date2026-09-06
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.1)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6