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

Comparison Overview

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLPGreenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

99 Wood Avenue South, Iselin, 08830, US

Last Update: 09/07/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.greenbaumlaw.com
555/1000Very Poor

We have deep roots in the state and a far-reaching knowledge of New Jersey business issues. True to that identity, we understand the “ins and outs” and the inherent complexities of handling legal challenges in New Jersey, knowledge which translates directly into an adva...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:195
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
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
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis 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)

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP has 31.03% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis 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...
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GRE1783592993
🔒 Incident : Breach
GREHACRWJTHE1783635866
🔒 Incident : Breach
TRIGREATL1783600896
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
Greenbaum-rowe-smith-&-davis-llp vs Dla-piper - Cyber Risk Comparison & Security Rating | Rankiteo