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

Comparison Overview

Frost & SullivanFrost & Sullivan
VS
Alvarez & MarsalAlvarez & Marsal
Frost & Sullivan

Frost & Sullivan

7550 IH 10 West, Suite 400, San Antonio, Texas, US, 78229

Last Update: 30/06/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://www.frost.com
613/1000Poor

For over six decades, Frost & Sullivan has guided the world’s top companies toward transformational growth journeys that result in a stream of innovative growth opportunities. Frost’s Growth Pipeline as a Service (GPaaS) value proposition allows customers to maximize th...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:2,291
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Alvarez & Marsal

Alvarez & Marsal

600 Madison Avenue, New York, 10022, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
782/1000Fair

Alvarez & Marsal is a leading global professional services firm dedicated to helping organizations tackle their most complex business issues, maximize stakeholder value, and deliver sustainable change. Privately held since its founding in 1983, clients select us for o...

NAICS:5416
NAICS Definition:Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees:13,906
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Frost & Sullivan

Frost & Sullivan

-
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
Alvarez & Marsal

Alvarez & Marsal

-
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 Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Frost & Sullivan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Business Consulting and Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alvarez & Marsal in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Frost & Sullivan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Frost & Sullivan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Alvarez & Marsal (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alvarez & Marsal cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Frost & Sullivan

Frost & Sullivan

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
FROCOICHACARCHAGOOFIR1782786669
🔒 Incident : Breach
FRO501072625
Alvarez & Marsal

Alvarez & Marsal

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-78147
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in ggml-org llama.cpp bec4772f6. The impacted element is the function deserialize_tensor of the file ggml/src/ggml-rpc/ggml-rpc.cpp of the component ggml-RPC Server. Performing a manipulation of the argument op/op_params results in deserialization. The attack may be initiated remotely. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2026-34159 (GHSA-j8rj-fmpv-wcxw, PR #20908), which only added a buffer==nullptr rejection in create_node() and does not validate op or op_params. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-78145
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in CTFd up to 3.8.4. The affected element is the function _is_safe_url of the file CTFd/utils/validators/__init__.py. Such manipulation of the argument Next leads to open redirect. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is 5d8515842fd1ab2c3a9f2dde9ffca907aa334ea9. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78144
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /boarders.php of the component Boarder Management Module. Such manipulation of the argument ID leads to authorization bypass. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78143
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file residents.php of the component Resident Search Functionality. This manipulation of the argument Search causes sql injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-78142
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in code-projects Barangay Resident Profiling Management System 1.0. This impacts an unknown function of the file /archived_records.php of the component Restore/Delete. The manipulation of the argument resident_id results in authorization bypass. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-23
UPDATED
Date2026-08-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8