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

Comparison Overview

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & PolettoHardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

673 Morris Ave, Springfield, 07081, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.hkmpp.com
705/1000Moderate

Through strategic thinking, preparation and the ability and willingness of its attorneys to try cases, the Firm has successfully represented insurers, businesses and professionals for decades. From offices in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania we offer teams of exper...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:63
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
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

-
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 Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto 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...
Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HAR855072525
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2