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

Comparison Overview

Erdemir MuhendislikErdemir Muhendislik
VS
AccentureAccenture
Erdemir Muhendislik

Erdemir Muhendislik

Ardiç Sokak, Barbaros, Istanbul, 34746, TR

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Erdemir Muhendislik Yonetim ve Danismanlik Hizmetleri A.S. (Erdemir Engineering Management and Consulting Services Inc. ) offers OYAK Mining Metallurgy Group companies a wide range of engineering and project management services, from planning to application, in their ca...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:254
Subsidiaries:29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Accenture

Accenture

Grand Canal Harbour, Dublin 2, IE

Last Update: 09/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.accenture.com
698/1000Weak

Accenture helps the world’s leading enterprises reinvent by building their digital core and unleashing the power of AI to create value at speed for organizations across industries. Our strategy is to be the reinvention partner of choice for our clients and lead in the s...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:690,859
Subsidiaries:32
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Erdemir Muhendislik

Erdemir Muhendislik

-
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
Accenture

Accenture

-
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 Erdemir Muhendislik in 2026.

Incidents

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

Accenture has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Erdemir Muhendislik (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Erdemir Muhendislik 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 - Accenture (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Accenture 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...
Erdemir Muhendislik

Erdemir Muhendislik

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Accenture

Accenture

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ACC1783556620
🔒 Incident : Breach
ACC1783463023
🔒 Incident : Breach
ACC1783528528

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2