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

Comparison Overview

HGS UKHGS UK
VS
AtentoAtento
HGS UK

HGS UK

UK Vantage London, London, TW8 9AG, GB

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://hgs.cx/locations/uk/
780/1000Fair

A leader in optimising CX, HGS helps our clients become more competitive every day. We provide world-class customer care and digital innovation for contact centre operations locally and globally. Our solutions ensure high quality conversations, in the customer channel...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Atento

Atento

Calle Santiago de Compostela, 94, Madrid, 28035, ES

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.atento.com
808/1000Good

We are one of the world's largest global providers of customer relationship management and business transformation outsourcing (CRM/BTO) services and industry leaders in Latin America. Our offerings have expanded beyond the realms of traditional Business Process Outsou...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:101,669
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
HGS UK

HGS UK

-
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
Atento

Atento

-
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 Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HGS UK in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Outsourcing and Offshoring Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Atento in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - HGS UK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HGS UK 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 - Atento (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Atento 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...
HGS UK

HGS UK

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Atento

Atento

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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