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

Comparison Overview

Concept Reply USConcept Reply US
VS
ThoughtworksThoughtworks
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

37000 Woodward Ave, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, US, 48304

Last Update: 20/12/2025

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Concept Reply is a leader in IoT solutions. We support and advise our customers in Automotive, Manufacturing, Smart Infrastructure and beyond in all aspects of Internet of Things (IoT) and Cloud Computing. With a background in engineering and a passion for cutting-edge...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:28
Subsidiaries:119
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

200 E Randolph St, 25th Floor, Chicago, IL, US, 60601-6501

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.thoughtworks.com
792/1000Fair

We are a global technology consultancy that delivers extraordinary impact by blending design, engineering and AI expertise. For 30 years, our commitment to design-led thinking, engineering excellence and innovation means we prioritize people, build teams with strong te...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:12,302
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

-
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
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

-
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 Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Concept Reply US in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Thoughtworks in 2026.

Incidents

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

Concept Reply US 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 - Thoughtworks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thoughtworks 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...
Concept Reply US

Concept Reply US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Thoughtworks

Thoughtworks

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19756
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Dromara lamp-cloud up to 5.10.0. This affects an unknown part of the file DefGenProjectController.java of the component Code Generator. Such manipulation of the argument outputDir/parent/projectPrefix leads to path traversal. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
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-2026-19753
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in Model Context Protocol mcp-rdf-explorer 1.0.0. Affected is the function explore_url of the file src/mcp-rdf-explorer/server.py of the component MCP Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. 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
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-73843
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.2 and 1.1.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go served caller-facing management APIs on the externally reachable agent listener without authentication, allowing network-reachable attackers to invoke /api/proxy/ and /api/exec/ operations, proxy the data-plane Kubernetes API, and execute commands in workload pods in multi-cluster deployments. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.2 and 1.1.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-73842
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. Prior to 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2, internal/cluster-gateway/server.go exposed /api/proxy/, /api/exec/, and /api/wirelogs/ on an internal listener without requiring a client certificate or token, allowing any network-reachable caller to read tenant Kubernetes Secrets, mutate workloads, and execute commands across connected data planes. This issue is fixed in versions 1.0.3, 1.1.3, and 1.2.0-rc.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.3
CVE-2026-73841
SUMMARY

OpenChoreo is a complete, open-source developer platform for Kubernetes. From 1.2.0-rc.1 until 1.2.0, internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/exec.go and internal/openchoreo-api/api/handlers/wirelogs.go authorize component:exec and wirelogs:view using the caller-supplied project query parameter instead of comp.Spec.Owner.ProjectName, allowing a user with a project-scoped grant to execute commands in and read wirelogs from components owned by other projects in the same namespace. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.2.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-13
UPDATED
Date2026-08-13
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8