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

Comparison Overview

E78E78
VS
Publicis SapientPublicis Sapient
E78

E78

1301 W 22nd St, Oak Brook, 60523, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://e78partners.com
753/1000Fair

E78 delivers platinum-level advisory, talent, and managed services that address the critical finance, technology, and transformation challenges faced by corporate leaders and PE sponsors across the middle market through Fortune 500 companies. Our expert teams, led by se...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:258
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Publicis Sapient

Publicis Sapient

40 Water St, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 02109

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://publicissapient.com/
797/1000Fair

Publicis Sapient is a technology company that provides enterprise AI platforms and services. With over 30 years of digital business transformation experience, we enable enterprise clients to transform how they operate and serve their customers, unlocking new value and e...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:25,723
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
E78

E78

-
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
Publicis Sapient

Publicis Sapient

-
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)

No incidents recorded for E78 in 2026.

Incidents

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

Publicis Sapient has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - E78 (X = Date, Y = Severity)

E78 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 - Publicis Sapient (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Publicis Sapient 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...
E78

E78

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Publicis Sapient

Publicis Sapient

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRE1777710220

FAQ

Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between E78 company and Publicis Sapient company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between E78 and Publicis Sapient, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between E78 and Publicis Sapient, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - E78 or Publicis Sapient ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - E78 or Publicis Sapient ?
Between E78 and Publicis Sapient, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between E78 and Publicis Sapient, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA