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

Comparison Overview

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAsEdwards, Faust & Smith CPAs
VS
Baker Tilly USBaker Tilly US
Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

15 Columbia Street, Bangor, 04401, US

Last Update: 28/05/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://efscpa.com
681/1000Weak

Edwards, Faust and Smith, CPAs was formed in 1991 by CPAs who came from a large reputable firm and wanted to provide accounting, audit, tax, and consulting services to small and mid-size businesses and individuals at the same professional standard provided by larger fir...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:10
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Baker Tilly US

Baker Tilly US

205 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, 60601, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bakertilly.com
772/1000Fair

Baker Tilly is a leading advisory, tax and assurance firm, providing clients with a genuine coast-to-coast and global advantage in major regions of the U.S. and in many of the world’s leading financial centers – New York, London, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chi...

NAICS:5412
NAICS Definition:Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees:10,396
Subsidiaries:39
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

-
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
Baker Tilly US

Baker Tilly 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs has 10.71% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Accounting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Baker Tilly US in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Baker Tilly US (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Baker Tilly US 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...
Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

Edwards, Faust & Smith CPAs

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
EDW1780000205
Baker Tilly US

Baker Tilly US

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71983
SUMMARY

MSI Radix AXE6600 router firmware version v781521 contains a command injection vulnerability in the wps.cgi interface that allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by injecting malicious input through the pin2g, pin5g, or pin6g parameters. Attackers can exploit these unsanitized parameters to execute arbitrary commands on the affected device and obtain root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71502
SUMMARY

CTI-Transmute contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability caused by insufficient neutralization of Vue template expression delimiters in server-rendered user-controlled data. An unauthenticated attacker can create a public conversion whose name or description contains a malicious Vue expression using the application's configured [[ ... ]] delimiters. User profile names may provide an additional injection vector. Although Jinja HTML escaping is applied, the resulting value is subsequently included in a DOM region compiled by Vue. Vue interprets the attacker-controlled value as a template expression rather than ordinary text. By accessing the JavaScript Function constructor from within the expression, an attacker can execute arbitrary JavaScript in the security context of the CTI-Transmute origin. The application's nonce-based Content Security Policy does not prevent exploitation because the Vue runtime compiler requires the unsafe-eval policy exception. The malicious payload is stored by the application and executed whenever another user opens an affected page, such as the public conversion detail page. The victim may be a normal user or an administrator. Successful exploitation could allow the attacker to: * Access data available to the victim through the application. * Extract API keys, tokens, or other sensitive information exposed to the page. * Perform authenticated actions using the victim's session. * Modify conversions or other application data. * Escalate the impact by targeting an administrator. A demonstrated payload can use [].constructor.constructor(...) to obtain the JavaScript Function constructor and execute arbitrary code. The regression tests also show that a short first-stage payload could retrieve an uncapped conversion description and evaluate a larger second-stage payload. The patch addresses the vulnerability by registering a global Jinja finalize hook that inserts a zero-width Unicode word joiner inside every Vue delimiter found in server-rendered values. This prevents Vue from recognizing the values as template expressions while preserving their visible representation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-71958
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the quicksetup.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write overly long strings to the test4, ssid2, and username fields and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71957
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a buffer overflow vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can write an overly long string to the netAcc.addlist[].name field and execute arbitrary commands by crafting a specific payload, or cause the device to crash.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71956
SUMMARY

D-Link DWR-M961 devices with hardware version C1 and software version 1.1.2_C1_202602110044 contain a command injection vulnerability in the app.cgi interface. A remote attacker can inject arbitrary malicious commands into the netDig.ping.dst field, resulting in command execution with root privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-08
UPDATED
Date2026-08-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9