Comparison Overview
EPAM Systems

EPAM Systems
41 University Drive Suite 202, Newtown, PA, US, 18940
Last Update: 07/09/2026
Since 1993, EPAM Systems, Inc. (NYSE: EPAM) has used its software engineering expertise to become a leading global provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading business and experience consulting partner for global enterpri...

Gainwell Technologies
United States, US
Last Update: 22/08/2026
The people who build careers at Gainwell Technologies share one thing: they want their work to matter. Here, it does. We're the essential ingredient that makes Medicaid work. For more than 50 years, we've combined our sweeping scale and technology to turn complex polic...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

EPAM Systems







Gainwell Technologies






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for EPAM Systems in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Gainwell Technologies has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - EPAM Systems (X = Date, Y = Severity)
EPAM Systems cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Gainwell Technologies (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Gainwell Technologies cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

EPAM Systems

Gainwell Technologies
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.