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

Comparison Overview

Concept Engineering ReplyConcept Engineering Reply
VS
SercoSerco
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering Reply

Via Nizza, 250, Turin, 10126, IT

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Concept Reply is the hardware and software development partner of the Reply Group specialized in IoT innovation. It offers solutions in the areas of Smart Infrastructure, Industrial IoT and Connected Vehicle. From the initial idea through the concept phase to implementa...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:180
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Serco

Serco

16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Bartley Way, Hook, RG27 9UY, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.serco.com/
754/1000Fair

We bring together the right people, the right technology and the right partners to create innovative solutions that make positive impact and address some of the most urgent and complex challenges facing the modern world. With a focus on serving governments globally, ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:32,052
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering Reply

-
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
Serco

Serco

-
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 Concept Engineering Reply in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for Serco in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Concept Engineering Reply (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Concept Engineering Reply 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 - Serco (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Serco 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...
Concept Engineering Reply

Concept Engineering Reply

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Serco

Serco

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SER05323322
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
SER2217291222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56355
SUMMARY

GNU Savannah Administration Savane through 3.17 uses untrusted data as part of authorization.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-56347
SUMMARY

AVideo TopMenu plugin through version 26.0 contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in menu item rendering due to missing output encoding of icon classes, URLs, and text labels. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript through unescaped menu item fields that execute for all site visitors, potentially stealing session cookies or performing unauthorized actions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-56346
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 25.0 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in the decryptMessage.json.php endpoint that allows unauthenticated users to decrypt PGP messages. Remote attackers can submit private keys, ciphertext, and passphrases to perform server-side decryption without credentials, exposing key material to logs and enabling resource exhaustion attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
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:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-56345
SUMMARY

AVideo through 29.0 contains an authorization bypass vulnerability in the Meet plugin's uploadRecordedVideo.json.php endpoint that derives the target users_id from the uploaded filename without verification. An attacker with knowledge of the Meet shared secret can craft a malicious file upload with a filename containing an arbitrary users_id to invoke passwordless User->login() and establish an authenticated session as any user including admin. Attackers can obtain the Meet shared secret through path-traversal vulnerabilities or timing attacks against checkToken.json.php, then POST a crafted file to uploadRecordedVideo.json.php with a filename like '1-anything.mp4' to hijack admin sessions and gain full account takeover.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-56342
SUMMARY

AVideo through version 27.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in plugin/Live/test.php that allows authenticated administrators to read arbitrary URLs via the statsURL parameter, which lacks isSSRFSafeURL() validation and accepts requests to private IP ranges and cloud metadata endpoints. Attackers can exploit this by crafting requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints like 169.254.169.254, and localhost to retrieve sensitive information including IAM credentials, internal service responses, and network configuration details.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-20
UPDATED
Date2026-06-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3