Comparison Overview

Engineering Group

VS

Orange Business

Engineering Group

Piazzale dell'agricoltura, 24, Roma, Lazio, IT, 00144
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 750 and 799

Engineering Group is the Digital Transformation Company, leader in Italy and expanding its global footprint, with around 14,000 associates and with over 80 offices spread across Europe, the United States, and South America and global delivery. The Engineering Group, consisting of over 70 companies in 21 countries, has been supporting the continuous evolution of companies and organizations for more than 40 years, thanks to a deep understanding of business processes in all market segments, fully leveraging the opportunities offered by advanced digital technologies and proprietary solutions. It integrates best-of-breed market solutions, managed services, and continues to expand its expertise through M&As and partnerships with leading technology players. The Group strongly invests both in innovation, through its R&I division, and in human capital, with the internal IT & Management Academy. Engineering is a key player in the creation of digital ecosystems that bridge the gap between different markets, while developing composable solutions that ultimately foster a continuous Business transformation. In 2026, Engineering achieved, for the second consecutive year, the Top Employers Italy certification, reaffirming the significant growth process for the company, which is constantly committed to enhancing HR policies to create a work environment centered on the well-being of people.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 11,943
Subsidiaries: 7
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Orange Business

La Plaine Saint Denis, Paris, FR, 93457 Cedex
Last Update: 2026-01-16

At Orange Business, our ambition is to become the leading european Network and Digital Integrator by leveraging our proven expertise in next-generation connectivity solutions, the cloud and cybersecurity. Our 30,000 women and men are present in 65 countries, where every voice counts. Together, we are driven by the same determination and the same team spirit, to build the digital solutions of today and tomorrow and create a positive impact for our customers, for their employees and for the planet. We offer exciting opportunities through innovative projects in data and digital, cloud, AI, cybersecurity, IoT, or digital workspace and big data. Join us and be part of this adventure!

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 28,320
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/engineering-group.jpeg
Engineering Group
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/orange-business.jpeg
Orange Business
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
Engineering Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Orange Business
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 Engineering Group in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Orange Business in 2026.

Incident History — Engineering Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Engineering Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Orange Business (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orange Business cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/engineering-group.jpeg
Engineering Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/orange-business.jpeg
Orange Business
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Orange Business company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Engineering Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Orange Business company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Engineering Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Orange Business company and Engineering Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Orange Business company nor Engineering Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Orange Business company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Engineering Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Orange Business company nor Engineering Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Engineering Group company nor Orange Business company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Engineering Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Orange Business company.

Orange Business company employs more people globally than Engineering Group company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Engineering Group nor Orange Business holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N