Comparison Overview

Field Training Services Limited

VS

Chicago Partners

Field Training Services Limited

41 Chiltern Avenue, Farnborough, GU14 9SG, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-28

Field Training Services can support Health and Safety Managers within companies by offering an external review and audit on your existing health and safety management procedures. This can give peace of mind and reassurance to the responsible person within the company. It ensures that you are aware of any possible short falls in legal compliance. We also provide a Health & Safety Management Support Package which involves us visiting the companies once a quarter giving our professional health and safety support and advice and helping the Health and Safety Manager with management of health and safety moving forward to maintain health and safety compliance. We are finding more and more that general staff are also being appointed to look after company’s health and safety but not entirely sure of where to start or whether they are doing this correctly. Let us take your worry away from you.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 3
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Chicago Partners

undefined, undefined, undefined, undefined, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Chicago Partners is a group of leading academic and industry professionals with backgrounds in economics, accounting, and finance. We provide economic analyses of legal and business issues for law firms, corporations, and government agencies. Chicago Partners, which was founded in 1994, has been a fully owned subsidiary of Navigant Consulting since May 1, 2008

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 26
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/field-training-services-limited.jpeg
Field Training Services Limited
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/chicago-partners.jpeg
Chicago Partners
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
Field Training Services Limited
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Chicago Partners
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Field Training Services Limited in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Chicago Partners in 2025.

Incident History — Field Training Services Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Field Training Services Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Chicago Partners (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Chicago Partners cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/field-training-services-limited.jpeg
Field Training Services Limited
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/chicago-partners.jpeg
Chicago Partners
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Chicago Partners company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Field Training Services Limited company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Chicago Partners company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Field Training Services Limited company.

In the current year, Chicago Partners company and Field Training Services Limited company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Chicago Partners company nor Field Training Services Limited company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Chicago Partners company nor Field Training Services Limited company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Chicago Partners company nor Field Training Services Limited company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Field Training Services Limited company nor Chicago Partners company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Field Training Services Limited company nor Chicago Partners company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Chicago Partners company employs more people globally than Field Training Services Limited company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Field Training Services Limited nor Chicago Partners holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was determined in motogadget mo.lock Ignition Lock up to 20251125. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component NFC Handler. Executing manipulation can lead to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . The physical device can be targeted for the attack. A high complexity level is associated with this attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 1.2
Severity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
cvss3
Base: 2.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
cvss4
Base: 1.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the interview attachment retrieval endpoint in the Recruitment module serves files based solely on an authenticated session and user-supplied identifiers, without verifying whether the requester has permission to access the associated interview record. Because the server does not perform any recruitment-level authorization checks, an ESS-level user with no access to recruitment workflows can directly request interview attachment URLs and receive the corresponding files. This exposes confidential interview documents—including candidate CVs, evaluations, and supporting files—to unauthorized users. The issue arises from relying on predictable object identifiers and session presence rather than validating the user’s association with the relevant recruitment process. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application’s recruitment attachment retrieval endpoint does not enforce the required authorization checks before serving candidate files. Even users restricted to ESS-level access, who have no permission to view the Recruitment module, can directly access candidate attachment URLs. When an authenticated request is made to the attachment endpoint, the system validates the session but does not confirm that the requesting user has the necessary recruitment permissions. As a result, any authenticated user can download CVs and other uploaded documents for arbitrary candidates by issuing direct requests to the attachment endpoint, leading to unauthorized exposure of sensitive applicant data. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the application does not invalidate existing sessions when a user is disabled or when a password change occurs, allowing active session cookies to remain valid indefinitely. As a result, a disabled user, or an attacker using a compromised account, can continue to access protected pages and perform operations as long as a prior session remains active. Because the server performs no session revocation or session-store cleanup during these critical state changes, disabling an account or updating credentials has no effect on already-established sessions. This makes administrative disable actions ineffective and allows unauthorized users to retain full access even after an account is closed or a password is reset, exposing the system to prolonged unauthorized use and significantly increasing the impact of account takeover scenarios. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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

OrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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