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

Comparison Overview

Gislason & Hunter LLPGislason & Hunter LLP
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Gislason & Hunter LLP

Gislason & Hunter LLP

111 South Second Street, Suite 500, Mankato, MN, US, 56001

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.gislason.com/
701/1000Moderate

The law firm of Gislason & Hunter has a long history of building lasting relationships with the clients and communities we serve. For more than 80 years, our mission has been to deliver the very best in service and results. We enjoy a reputation as one of the premier ci...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:66
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HT, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
782/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,333
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gislason & Hunter LLP

Gislason & Hunter LLP

-
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
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
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 Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gislason & Hunter LLP in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gislason & Hunter LLP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gislason & Hunter LLP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper 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...
Gislason & Hunter LLP

Gislason & Hunter LLP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GIS917072525
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA