Comparison Overview

DLA Piper

VS

Baker McKenzie

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, England, GB, EC1A 4HT
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

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 exceptional outcomes on cross-border projects, critical transactions and high-stakes disputes. Every day we help trailblazing organizations seize business opportunities and successfully manage growth and change at speed. Through our pro bono work and community investment around the world, we help create a more just and sustainable future. Visit dlapiper.com to discover more.

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 12,494
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Baker McKenzie

300 E Randolph St, Chicago, IL, US, 60601
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Integrated legal solutions to complex business challenges. The global business community is more interconnected than ever before. Opportunities and risks spill across different markets, sectors and areas of law. A connected perspective is essential in delivering business objectives while mitigating risk. Our integrated client solutions provide seamless advice underpinned by deep practice, sector expertise, and first-rate local market knowledge. Armed with Baker McKenzie's insight and foresight, business leaders can feel confident driving sustainable – and inclusive growth. Learn more: https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/expertise/solutions-connected-world Content may include attorney advertising.

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 11,170
Subsidiaries: 30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
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/baker-&-mckenzie.jpeg
Baker McKenzie
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
DLA Piper
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Baker McKenzie
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2025.

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baker McKenzie in 2025.

Incident History — DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Baker McKenzie (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baker McKenzie cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/baker-&-mckenzie.jpeg
Baker McKenzie
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Baker McKenzie company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to DLA Piper company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Baker McKenzie company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to DLA Piper company.

In the current year, Baker McKenzie company and DLA Piper company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Baker McKenzie company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Baker McKenzie company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Baker McKenzie company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Baker McKenzie company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Baker McKenzie company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to DLA Piper company.

DLA Piper company employs more people globally than Baker McKenzie company, reflecting its scale as a Law Practice.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds HIPAA certification.

Neither DLA Piper nor Baker McKenzie holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.