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

Comparison Overview

Graham MatthewsGraham Matthews
VS
Michael PageMichael Page
Graham Matthews

Graham Matthews

84 Eccleston Square, London, England, SW1V 1PX, GB

Last Update: 11/08/2026

View Profile
761/1000Fair

Founded in 2015 with backing from James Caan CBE, Graham Matthews supply high calibre candidates in the IT Services, Software & Digital sectors. We place high calibre talent in interim and permanent positions across the UK, Western Europe and the USA. We pride ourselve...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:0
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Michael Page

Michael Page

PageGroup, Addlestone, Weybridge, GB, KT15 2QW

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
819/1000Good

Welcome to the Michael Page global company profile. Michael Page has five decades of expertise in professional services recruitment. We were established in London in 1976, and over this period we've grown organically to become one of the best-known and most respected c...

NAICS:5613
NAICS Definition:Employment Services
Employees:13,297
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Graham Matthews

Graham Matthews

-
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
Michael Page

Michael Page

-
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 Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Graham Matthews in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Staffing and Recruiting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Michael Page in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Graham Matthews (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Graham Matthews cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Michael Page (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Michael Page 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...
Graham Matthews

Graham Matthews

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Michael Page

Michael Page

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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: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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9