Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Frazier & DeeterFrazier & Deeter
VS
Grant Thornton (US)Grant Thornton (US)
Frazier & Deeter

Frazier & Deeter

1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA, US, 30309

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.frazierdeeter.com
731/1000Moderate

Frazier & Deeter (FD) is an award-winning professional services firm, comprised of Frazier & Deeter, LLC, a US licensed CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Frazier & Deeter Advisory, LLC, an alternative practice structure that provides tax and adv...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:881
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

171 N. Clark Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL, US, 60601

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://gt-us.co/3LukwpC
765/1000Fair

In the US, Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. G...

NAICS:54
NAICS Definition:Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Employees:11,632
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Frazier & Deeter

Frazier & Deeter

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Frazier & Deeter in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Professional Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Grant Thornton (US) in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Frazier & Deeter (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Frazier & Deeter cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Grant Thornton (US) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Grant Thornton (US) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Frazier & Deeter

Frazier & Deeter

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FRA727072825
Grant Thornton (US)

Grant Thornton (US)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRA519072625

FAQ

Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Frazier & Deeter company and Grant Thornton (US) company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Frazier & Deeter and Grant Thornton (US), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Frazier & Deeter and Grant Thornton (US), which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Frazier & Deeter or Grant Thornton (US) ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Frazier & Deeter or Grant Thornton (US) ?
Between Frazier & Deeter and Grant Thornton (US), which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Frazier & Deeter and Grant Thornton (US), which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-85456
SUMMARY

MOOS-IvP through 24.8.1 fails to properly validate variable names extracted from alog files in the SplitHandler, allowing attackers to write files outside the split directory. Attackers can supply crafted alog files with backslash sequences in variable names to escape the output directory and append to arbitrary files on Windows systems.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-85455
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer over-read vulnerability in CMOOSCommPkt where a four-byte packet triggers out-of-bounds memory access during deserialization. Attackers can open a TCP connection to the MOOSDB port and send a crafted short packet to read memory before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-85454
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in CMOOSSerialPort::GetTelegram() that writes a NUL terminator one byte past the serial telegram stack buffer. Attackers controlling the serial line can send a full-length telegram to trigger the off-by-one write, corrupting the stack and potentially enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9
CVE-2026-85453
SUMMARY

MOOS core-moos through 10.4.0 fails to escape database contents when rendering MOOSDB HTTP pages, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts. Any MOOS publisher can set variable values containing script payloads that execute in the browser of operators viewing the web interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-85452
SUMMARY

MOOS ui-moos through 50b9c6c contains a buffer overflow vulnerability in ScopeTabPane.cpp and ScopeGrid.cpp where client and variable names are formatted into fixed 1024-byte buffers using sprintf without length validation. Attackers can supply arbitrarily long MOOS identifiers that overflow the buffers when an operator selects process list entries or pokes variables, enabling code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-03
UPDATED
Date2026-09-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8