Comparison Overview

HP

VS

CGI

HP

1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA, US, 94304
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

HP is redefining the future of work through technology.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 143,155
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

CGI

Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1T4, CA
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

Insights you can act on to achieve trusted outcomes. We are insights-driven and outcomes-focused to help accelerate returns on your investments. Across 21 industry sectors and 400 locations worldwide, we provide comprehensive, scalable and sustainable IT and business consulting services that are informed globally and delivered locally. We value your opinions and welcome your comments and questions on our posts here on LinkedIn. Please keep a polite, professional and constructive tone. We remove comments containing objectionable language and derogatory views. We do not allow content that is unrelated to the subject, and we remove discriminatory and racist comments as well as spam and advertising. Note that content on this page contains general information regarding CGI’s services and initiatives and should not be considered direct business advice. To engage in a discussion with one of our experts, please make a request through https://www.cgi.com/en/contact-us

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 67,825
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hp.jpeg
HP
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cgi.jpeg
CGI
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
HP
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CGI
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

HP has 33.33% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CGI in 2025.

Incident History — HP (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CGI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CGI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hp.jpeg
HP
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2025
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: Unquoted Search Path Weakness
Motivation: Privilege Escalation
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cgi.jpeg
CGI
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

HP company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to CGI company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HP company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas CGI company has not reported any.

In the current year, HP company has reported more cyber incidents than CGI company.

Neither CGI company nor HP company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CGI company nor HP company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither CGI company nor HP company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

HP company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while CGI company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither HP nor CGI holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

HP company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to CGI company.

HP company employs more people globally than CGI company, reflecting its scale as a IT Services and IT Consulting.

Neither HP nor CGI holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HP nor CGI holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HP nor CGI holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HP nor CGI holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HP nor CGI holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HP nor CGI holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

A vulnerability was found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected is an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPUserSetting. Performing manipulation of the argument delno results in stack-based buffer overflow. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

A vulnerability has been found in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This impacts an unknown function of the file /goform/PPTPServer. Such manipulation of the argument ip1 leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 8.3
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:M/C:C/I:C/A:C
cvss3
Base: 7.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cvss4
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

A flaw has been found in omec-project UPF up to 2.1.3-dev. This affects the function handleSessionEstablishmentRequest of the file /pfcpiface/pfcpiface/messages_session.go of the component PFCP Session Establishment Request Handler. This manipulation causes null pointer dereference. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
Description

A vulnerability was detected in floooh sokol up to 16cbcc864012898793cd2bc57f802499a264ea40. The impacted element is the function _sg_pipeline_desc_defaults in the library sokol_gfx.h. The manipulation results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit is now public and may be used. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The patch is identified as 5d11344150973f15e16d3ec4ee7550a73fb995e0. It is advisable to implement a patch to correct this issue.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 4.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in PbootCMS up to 3.2.12. The affected element is the function get_user_ip of the file core/function/handle.php of the component Header Handler. The manipulation of the argument X-Forwarded-For leads to use of less trusted source. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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