Comparison Overview

Example Corp.

VS

Mazars

Example Corp.

None
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

Mazars

Tour Exaltis, 61 rue Henri Regnault, Paris La Defense, FR, 92075
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Mazars is an internationally integrated partnership, specialising in audit, accountancy, advisory, tax and legal services*. Operating in over 100 countries and territories around the world, we draw on the expertise of more than 50,000 professionals – 33,000+ in Mazars’ integrated partnership and 17,000+ via the Mazars North America Alliance – to assist clients of all sizes at every stage in their development. *Where permitted under applicable country laws

NAICS: 5412
NAICS Definition: Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services
Employees: 13,721
Subsidiaries: 32
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/example-corp.jpeg
Example Corp.
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/mazars.jpeg
Mazars
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
Example Corp.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Mazars
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 Mazars in 2025.

Incident History — Example Corp. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Example Corp. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Mazars (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mazars cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/example-corp.jpeg
Example Corp.
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Submitting a certain word or phrase, SQL command, Malformed data
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Email System Vulnerability
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Exploitation of vulnerabilities in MOVEit software
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/mazars.jpeg
Mazars
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Physical Theft (Stolen Laptop)
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Mazars 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 faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Mazars company.

In the current year, Mazars and Example Corp. have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Example Corp. company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Mazars company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Mazars company and Example Corp. company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Example Corp. company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Mazars company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Example Corp. company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Mazars company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Mazars company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Example Corp. company.

Mazars company employs more people globally than Example Corp. company, reflecting its scale as a Accounting.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Example Corp. nor Mazars 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
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