Comparison Overview

Flaherty & Hood, P.A.

VS

PGC Legal

Flaherty & Hood, P.A.

525 PARK ST, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55103, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

With over 20 years of experience, Flaherty & Hood provides comprehensive legal support to coalitions, individual cities, businesses and associations throughout Minnesota. Our unique approach to fulfilling our clients’ needs incorporates not only the fields of law, government relations and fiscal and policy analysis, but also high-quality and effective communications and media support.

NAICS: 5411
NAICS Definition: Legal Services
Employees: 29
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

PGC Legal

Level 12/ 44 Waymouth Street, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

PGC Legal is a progressive commercial law firm with strong experience in a broad range of areas. Our team applies its significant legal experience to provide clients with clear, strategic, user friendly advice. We pride ourselves on delivering the outcomes that our clients want. To achieve that outcome, we take the time to listen and to develop tailored strategies appropriate to each matter, and we make the right decisions at the right time. Our objective is simple: to provide exceptional service, cost effectively, with as little interruption as possible to our clients’ daily lives. We value the relationships we develop and work closely with our clients to achieve positive outcomes in what can be challenging and stressful circumstances.

NAICS: 541
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 24
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/flaherty-&-hood-p-a-.jpeg
Flaherty & Hood, 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
Flaherty & Hood, P.A.
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
PGC Legal
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Flaherty & Hood, P.A. in 2025.

Incidents vs Legal Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for PGC Legal in 2025.

Incident History — Flaherty & Hood, P.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Flaherty & Hood, P.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — PGC Legal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PGC Legal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/flaherty-&-hood-p-a-.jpeg
Flaherty & Hood, P.A.
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/pgclegal.jpeg
PGC Legal
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to PGC Legal company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, PGC Legal company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company.

In the current year, PGC Legal company and Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither PGC Legal company nor Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither PGC Legal company nor Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither PGC Legal company nor Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company nor PGC Legal company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company nor PGC Legal company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Flaherty & Hood, P.A. company employs more people globally than PGC Legal company, reflecting its scale as a Legal Services.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Flaherty & Hood, P.A. nor PGC Legal 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