Comparison Overview

HP

VS

Orange Business

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

Orange Business

La Plaine Saint Denis, None, Paris, None, FR, 93457 Cedex
Last Update: 2025-12-25

At Orange Business, our ambition is to become the leading european Network and Digital Integrator by leveraging our proven expertise in next-generation connectivity solutions, the cloud and cybersecurity. Our 30,000 women and men are present in 65 countries, where every voice counts. Together, we are driven by the same determination and the same team spirit, to build the digital solutions of today and tomorrow and create a positive impact for our customers, for their employees and for the planet. We offer exciting opportunities through innovative projects in data and digital, cloud, AI, cybersecurity, IoT, or digital workspace and big data. Join us and be part of this adventure!

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 27,147
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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/orange-business.jpeg
Orange Business
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
Orange Business
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 Orange Business in 2025.

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

HP cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Orange Business (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orange Business 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/orange-business.jpeg
Orange Business
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

HP and Orange Business have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

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

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

Orange Business company has disclosed at least one data breach, while HP company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Orange Business company nor HP company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

HP company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Orange Business company.

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

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HP nor Orange Business holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HP nor Orange Business 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