Comparison Overview

Diebold Nixdorf

VS

Avanade

Diebold Nixdorf

350 Orchard Ave NE, North Canton, Ohio, 44720, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 700 and 749

We automate, digitize and transform the way people bank and shop. We offer proven expertise and comprehensive portfolios in cutting-edge product technology, multi-vendor software and service excellence for financial and retail customers. Consumer behavior is changing rapidly; people are empowered and connected and expect unprecedented service and convenience. The world is “always on” – a digital era requiring us to orchestrate touchpoints in ways that meet and exceed the 24/7 automation needs of the banking and retail worlds. Diebold Nixdorf employs approximately 21,000 employees in more than 130 countries worldwide. We are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “DBD.” Specialties: financial and retail self-service solutions, services, security solutions, software, cash management, branch and store transformation

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 19,828
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
3

Avanade

1191 2nd Ave, Seattle, Washington, US, 98101
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Avanade is the world’s leading expert on Microsoft. Trusted by over 7,000 clients worldwide, we deliver AI-driven solutions that unlock the full potential of people and technology, optimize operations, foster innovation and drive growth. As Microsoft’s Global SI Partner we combine global scale with local expertise in AI, cloud, data analytics, cybersecurity, and ERP to design solutions that prioritize people and drive meaningful impact. We champion diversity, inclusion, and sustainability, ensuring our work benefits society and business.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 17,243
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/diebold.jpeg
Diebold Nixdorf
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Diebold Nixdorf
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Avanade
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Diebold Nixdorf in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Avanade in 2025.

Incident History — Diebold Nixdorf (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Diebold Nixdorf cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Avanade (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Avanade cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/diebold.jpeg
Diebold Nixdorf
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Hard Drive Encryption Bypass
Motivation: Financial Data Breach, Unauthorized Cash Withdrawals
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2020
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/avanade.jpeg
Avanade
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Avanade company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Diebold Nixdorf company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Diebold Nixdorf company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Avanade company has not reported any.

In the current year, Avanade company and Diebold Nixdorf company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Diebold Nixdorf company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Avanade company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Avanade company nor Diebold Nixdorf company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Diebold Nixdorf company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Avanade company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Diebold Nixdorf company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Avanade company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Avanade company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Diebold Nixdorf company.

Diebold Nixdorf company employs more people globally than Avanade company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Diebold Nixdorf nor Avanade holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H