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

Comparison Overview

EffectvEffectv
VS
VMLVML
Effectv

Effectv

New York, 10036, US

Last Update: 19/02/2026

View Profile

Effectv is now Comcast Advertising. Follow our Comcast Advertising page for the latest updates on how we're connecting brands and their audiences through multiscreen TV advertising. For more information, visit https://comcastadvertising.com/.

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:806
Subsidiaries:13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
VML

VML

3 WTC 175 Greenwich Street, New York, New York, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.vml.com
801/1000Good

VML is a global powerhouse born from the unification of Wunderman Thompson and VMLY&R — two of the world's most powerful and accomplished creative agencies with complementary capabilities and geographic strengths. We have an industry-unique opportunity to provide our cl...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:34,183
Subsidiaries:34
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Effectv

Effectv

-
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
VML

VML

-
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 Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Effectv in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for VML in 2026.

Incidents

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

Effectv cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

VML 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...
Effectv

Effectv

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
VML

VML

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9