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

Comparison Overview

CMS NetherlandsCMS Netherlands
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
CMS Netherlands

CMS Netherlands

Parnassusweg 737, Amsterdam, 1077 DG, NL

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://cms.law/nl/nld/
753/1000Fair

CMS is een toekomstgerichte organisatie van advocatenkantoren in meer dan 45 landen, met 6.300 juristen. Onze advocaten, notarissen en belastingadviseurs combineren diepgaande kennis van de Nederlandse markt, waarop we al meer dan een eeuw actief zijn, met een wereldwij...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:312
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Global, GB

Last Update: 08/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
783/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,425
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CMS Netherlands

CMS Netherlands

-
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
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
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 Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CMS Netherlands in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CMS Netherlands (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CMS Netherlands 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 - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper 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...
CMS Netherlands

CMS Netherlands

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-108773
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in erzhongxmu JEEWMS up to 2026.09.27-W39. Impacted is the function docheck of the file src/main/java/com/zzjee/wm/controller/WmOmNoticeHController.java. Performing a manipulation of the argument goodscode results in sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-11
UPDATED
Date2026-10-11
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-2026-108772
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in bleenco abstruse up to 2.1.0. This issue affects the function filepath.Join of the file server/api/worker/download_cache.go of the component Cache Endpoint. Such manipulation of the argument File leads to path traversal. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-11
UPDATED
Date2026-10-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-108770
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Appwrite up to 2.3.0. This vulnerability affects the function PublicHostname of the file src/Appwrite/Platform/Modules/Avatars/Http/Screenshots/Get.php of the component Browser Screenshot Service. This manipulation of the argument url causes server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. Upgrading to version 2.4.0 is able to resolve this issue. Patch name: 393255e7302ae5503331d45802e2eee01c6a47fe. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-11
UPDATED
Date2026-10-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-108978
SUMMARY

Heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in Samsung Opensource rlottie allows Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables. This issue affects rlottie: e57b094f03c39a751a1fded6f7d6c13f1ed95ec9.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-11
UPDATED
Date2026-10-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-108769
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in zhayujie CowAgent up to 2.2.0. This affects an unknown part of the file Markdown.tsx of the component Markdown Rendering. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-11
UPDATED
Date2026-10-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
2.8