Comparison Overview

Fisher Rushmer, P.A.

VS

Legal Services Commission of South Australia

Fisher Rushmer, P.A.

390 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, 32801-1642, US
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

Since 1984, the Orlando law firm of Fisher Rushmer, P.A. has been recognized for excellence year after year and continues to be a top-ranked law firm helping clients throughout Florida. Our attorneys are passionate about the law and will serve you in a fair and ethical manner. Clients are served by attorneys, not case managers, so you are assured to get the highly-skilled representation you need. We are committed to delivering effective, efficient and quality legal services because we care about every client and every case. This personal attention and respect are what keep our clients coming back to us, and why we get so many referrals from them. Contact Fisher Rushmer today to get the legal representation that you deserve.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 47
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Legal Services Commission of South Australia

159 Gawler Pl, Adelaide, 5000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-28
Between 750 and 799

The Legal Services Commission is the largest legal assistance service provider in South Australia. Established by the Legal Services Commission Act 1977 (SA) and funded by both the South Australian and Commonwealth governments, the Commission aims to provide all South Australians equal access to justice through the legal system, through the provision of free legal information, legal advice and legal education with a focus on prevention and early resolution of legal problems. To those most in need, legal representation is also provided - principally in the areas of criminal law and family law, including child support and child protection.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 166
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/fisher-rushmer-pa.jpeg
Fisher Rushmer, P.A.
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
Fisher Rushmer, P.A.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Legal Services Commission of South Australia
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Fisher Rushmer, P.A. in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Legal Services Commission of South Australia in 2025.

Incident History — Fisher Rushmer, P.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fisher Rushmer, P.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Legal Services Commission of South Australia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Legal Services Commission of South Australia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fisher-rushmer-pa.jpeg
Fisher Rushmer, P.A.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/legal-services-commission-of-south-australia.jpeg
Legal Services Commission of South Australia
Incidents

FAQ

Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Legal Services Commission of South Australia company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Legal Services Commission of South Australia company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company.

In the current year, Legal Services Commission of South Australia company and Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Legal Services Commission of South Australia company nor Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Legal Services Commission of South Australia company nor Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Legal Services Commission of South Australia company nor Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Legal Services Commission of South Australia company employs more people globally than Fisher Rushmer, P.A. company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fisher Rushmer, P.A. nor Legal Services Commission of South Australia 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