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

Comparison Overview

ConduentConduent
VS
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
Conduent

Conduent

100 Campus Dr, Florham Park, 07932, US

Last Update: 06/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.conduent.com
100/1000Critical

Conduent delivers digital business solutions and services spanning the commercial, government and transportation spectrum – creating valuable outcomes for its clients and the millions of people who count on them. We leverage cloud computing, artificial intelligence, mac...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:39,366
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
7
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
4
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

200 Pier 4 Blvd, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 02210

Last Update: 19/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bcg.com
789/1000Fair

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:40,418
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Conduent

Conduent

-
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
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

Conduent has 403.6% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Conduent cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) 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...
Conduent

Conduent

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADOCONAFLSON1786027126
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CON1776790111
🔒 Incident : Breach
CON1772670434
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
BAIBOS1776126313

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53541
SUMMARY

OliveTin gives access to predefined shell commands from a web interface. The `filterToDefinedArgumentsOnly` function in the executor is intended to discard any arguments not explicitly defined in the action's configuration. However, prior to commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d, a special case allows any argument whose name starts with `ot_` to bypass this filter. While two system arguments (`ot_executionTrackingId` and `ot_username`) are injected by OliveTin and overridden, all other `ot_`-prefixed arguments supplied by the user pass through unmodified. These bypassed arguments are not type-checked — the validation loop only iterates over the action's defined arguments, so `ot_`-prefixed arguments skip all type safety checks entirely; set as environment variables — via `buildEnv()`, with completely unvalidated values, and passed to the executed command; and included in the template context — available as `.Arguments.ot_*` in template rendering. Commit ebffd9f040f791208aee1db2e5a8aecd1e3e603d contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
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
CVE-2026-53525
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 0.3.1 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay authentication uses non-constant-time string comparison functions (weechat_strcasecmp and strcmp) to verify password hashes and plaintext passwords. An attacker can exploit timing differences to extract the server-computed hash character by character, then authenticate using the correct hash without knowing the password. Version 4.9.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-53524
SUMMARY

WeeChat (Wee Enhanced Environment for Chat) is a free chat client. In versions 4.3.0 through 4.9.0, the WeeChat relay module's WebSocket permessage-deflate decompression function relay_websocket_inflate() has no upper bound on output size. An authenticated relay user can send a small compressed WebSocket frame (~100 bytes) that decompresses to gigabytes, exhausting all server memory and crashing the entire WeeChat process. The api protocol enables permessage-deflate and requires authentication before WebSocket upgrade. Version 4.9.1 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-53499
SUMMARY

FORT Validator is a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) relying-party validator that produces validated route-origin data. FORT Validator versions through 1.6.7 contain an origin-validation error in their RRDP processing: a delegated CA under the same Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) can reference a victim CA’s public RRDP notification and snapshot URLs, causing FORT’s URL-based download cache to report success after deleting the victim’s local snapshot. Following a routine victim publication, this can silently remove the victim’s VRPs and other signed objects from FORT’s output, potentially enabling route hijacking or loss of reachability. Version 1.6.8 contains a patch that rejects cross-origin RRDP snapshot and delta URLs; as a workaround, administrators can disable HTTP/RRDP with  --http.enabled=false  while keeping rsync enabled, although this can leave data unavailable or stale where rsync is not supported.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/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-2026-49360
SUMMARY

Recce is a data-validation toolkit for enhanced dbt (data build tool) PR review. Prior to version 1.50.0, OSS server deployments that expose the server to an untrusted network without authentication are vulnerable to unauthenticated SQL execution through the query run API. When Recce is configured with a DuckDB-backed project, an attacker can use DuckDB filesystem primitives to read and write files accessible to the Recce server process. The impact depends on how Recce is deployed, but may include disclosure of local files, tampering with Recce/dbt artifacts, modification of browser-served static files leading to stored XSS, and modification of application files if those paths are writable. If Recce is run as root, file access occurs with root privileges inside that host or container. This issue has been patched in Recce `v1.50.0`. Users should upgrade to Recce `v1.50.0` or later. The patch restricts unsafe file read/write behavior for DuckDB-backed query execution and hardens the affected query path. Other warehouse adapters have also been reviewed for similar exposure. Users who cannot upgrade immediately should avoid exposing `recce server` to the public internet or any untrusted network. Recommended mitigations include enabling authentication or placing Recce behind an authenticated reverse proxy/VPN, running Recce as a non-root user, using a read-only application filesystem where possible, and ensuring that sensitive files or credentials are not available to the Recce process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-21
UPDATED
Date2026-08-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA