Comparison Overview

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

VS

DLA Piper

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

One Vanderbilt Ave., None, New York, New York, US, 10017
Last Update: 2025-09-04 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 2,850 attorneys across 49 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firmโ€™s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2025 BTI โ€œBest of the Best Recommended Law Firmโ€ by general counsel for trust and relationship management, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100, NLJ 500, and Law360 400. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

NAICS: 54111
NAICS Definition: Offices of Lawyers
Employees: 5,326
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, England, EC1A 4HT, GB
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

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: 13,402
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/greenberg-traurig-llp.jpeg
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
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 Greenberg Traurig, LLP in 2025.

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Greenberg Traurig, LLP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” 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/greenberg-traurig-llp.jpeg
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/dla-piper.jpeg
DLA Piper
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Greenberg Traurig, LLP company and DLA Piper company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, DLA Piper company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Greenberg Traurig, LLP company.

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

Neither DLA Piper company nor Greenberg Traurig, LLP company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Greenberg Traurig, LLP company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither DLA Piper company nor Greenberg Traurig, LLP company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Greenberg Traurig, LLP company nor DLA Piper company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

DLA Piper company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Greenberg Traurig, LLP company.

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

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

FreshRSS is a free, self-hostable RSS aggregator. Versions 1.26.3 and below do not sanitize certain event handler attributes in feed content, so by finding a page that renders feed entries without CSP, it is possible to execute an XSS payload. The Allow API access authentication setting needs to be enabled by the instance administrator beforehand for the attack to work as it relies on api/query.php. An account takeover is possible by sending a change password request via the XSS payload / setting UserJS for persistence / stealing the autofill password / displaying a phishing page with a spoofed URL using history.replaceState() If the victim is an administrator, the attacker can also perform administrative actions. This issue is fixed in version 1.27.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.6 and below, go-f3 panics when it validates a "poison" messages causing Filecoin nodes consuming F3 messages to become vulnerable. A "poison" message can can cause integer overflow in the signer index validation, which can cause the whole node to crash. These malicious messages aren't self-propagating since the bug is in the validator. An attacker needs to directly send the message to all targets. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.7.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

go-f3 is a Golang implementation of Fast Finality for Filecoin (F3). In versions 0.8.8 and below, go-f3's justification verification caching mechanism has a vulnerability where verification results are cached without properly considering the context of the message. An attacker can bypass justification verification by submitting a valid message with a correct justification and then reusing the same cached justification in contexts where it would normally be invalid. This occurs because the cached verification does not properly validate the relationship between the justification and the specific message context it's being used with. This issue is fixed in version 0.8.9.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
Description

mkdocs-include-markdown-plugin is an Mkdocs Markdown includer plugin. In versions 7.1.7 and below, there is a vulnerability where unvalidated input can collide with substitution placeholders. This issue is fixed in version 7.1.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Description

go-mail is a comprehensive library for sending mails with Go. In versions 0.7.0 and below, due to incorrect handling of the mail.Address values when a sender- or recipient address is passed to the corresponding MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands of the SMTP client, there is a possibility of wrong address routing or even ESMTP parameter smuggling. For successful exploitation, it is required that the user's code allows for arbitrary mail address input (i. e. through a web form or similar). If only static mail addresses are used (i. e. in a config file) and the mail addresses in use do not consist of quoted local parts, this should not affect users. This issue is fixed in version 0.7.1

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/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