Comparison Overview

Goodwin

VS

DLA Piper

Goodwin

None, None, Global, None, US, None
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 700 and 749

Goodwin is a global law firm with more than 1,800 lawyers in its offices located in the United States, Europe and Asia. We build lasting relationships with our clients, including many of the world’s most successful and innovative leaders, entrepreneurs, companies, and investors within the life sciences, private equity, real estate, technology, and financial services industries, and where they converge. Our immersive understanding of our clients’ industries – combined with our expertise across high-stakes litigation and dispute resolution, world-class regulatory compliance and advisory services, and complex transactions – sets us apart. Our offices are found in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., Brussels, Cambridge, Frankfurt, London, Luxembourg, Paris, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Engage with us on Instagram: @Join_Goodwin *Attorney Advertising

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 3,994
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, England, GB, EC1A 4HT
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

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 exceptional outcomes on cross-border projects, critical transactions and high-stakes disputes. Every day we help trailblazing organizations seize business opportunities and successfully manage growth and change at speed. Through our pro bono work and community investment around the world, we help create a more just and sustainable future. Visit dlapiper.com to discover more.

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 12,494
Subsidiaries: 15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/goodwin-law.jpeg
Goodwin
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
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
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
Goodwin
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DLA Piper
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Goodwin in 2025.

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2025.

Incident History — Goodwin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Goodwin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

DLA Piper cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/goodwin-law.jpeg
Goodwin
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Third-party vendor
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

DLA Piper company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Goodwin company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Goodwin company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas DLA Piper company has not reported any.

In the current year, DLA Piper company and Goodwin company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Goodwin company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Goodwin company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other DLA Piper company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Goodwin company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Goodwin company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

DLA Piper company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Goodwin company.

DLA Piper company employs more people globally than Goodwin company, reflecting its scale as a Law Practice.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Goodwin nor DLA Piper 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