Example Corp.
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 0 and 549
None
NAICS: 5412
NAICS Definition: Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees: 1
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
4
Comparison Overview
Example Corp.
VS
Grant Thornton (US)
Grant Thornton (US)
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799
Forget what you think you know about professional services. We go beyond what’s expected and help others do the same. Grant Thornton is the brand name for Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC the U.S. member firms of Grant Thornton International Ltd, one of the world’s leading independent audit & assurance, tax and advisory firms. That means our network has more than 73,000 professionals in more than 146 countries who are ready to help public and private organizations of all sizes take on today’s challenges. But what sets us apart isn’t just what we do – it’s how we do it. Here, we believe in making business more personal and building trust into every result. We’re collaborators – obsessed with quality and ready for anything – who understand the value of strong relationships. It’s how we challenge the expectations of business and empower our people and clients to do it, too. One thing we won’t do? Grant Thornton will never request money or any form of payment for services via social media. Please report any concerns at 1-800-810-3503. Grant Thornton International Limited (GTIL) and the member firms, including Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC, are not a worldwide partnership. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. Please see www.grantthornton.com for further details.
NAICS: 5412
NAICS Definition: Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees: 11,931
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Compliance Badges Comparison
Security & Compliance Standards Overview
Example Corp.
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Grant Thornton (US)
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Example Corp.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Grant Thornton (US)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Accounting Industry Average (This Year)
Example Corp. has 13.64% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Accounting Industry Average (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Grant Thornton (US) in 2025.
Incident History — Example Corp. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Example Corp. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Incident History — Grant Thornton (US) (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Grant Thornton (US) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Notable Incidents
Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company
FAQ
Grant Thornton (US) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Example Corp. company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
Example Corp. company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Grant Thornton (US) company has not reported any.
In the current year, Example Corp. company has reported more cyber incidents than Grant Thornton (US) company.
Example Corp. company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Grant Thornton (US) company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Example Corp. company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Grant Thornton (US) company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Example Corp. company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Grant Thornton (US) company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Example Corp. company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Grant Thornton (US) company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
Neither Example Corp. company nor Grant Thornton (US) company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.
Grant Thornton (US) company employs more people globally than Example Corp. company, reflecting its scale as a Accounting.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Example Corp. nor Grant Thornton (US) holds GDPR certification.
Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)
Description
Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
References
- https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/0276479e7d0e280e0f8d26fa567d3b7aa97a516f
- https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/05fe6686a97fa0bcd3cf157805b3612033f975bc
- https://github.com/angular/angular/commit/3240d856d942727372a705252f7c8c115394a41e
- https://github.com/angular/angular/releases/tag/19.2.16
- https://github.com/angular/angular/releases/tag/20.3.14
- https://github.com/angular/angular/releases/tag/21.0.1
- https://github.com/angular/angular/security/advisories/GHSA-58c5-g7wp-6w37
Description
Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description
Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.
Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description
Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description
Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
