Comparison Overview
Indra

Indra
Avda. Bruselas, 35, Madrid, 28108, ES
Last Update: 14/09/2026
Indra Group (https://www.indragroup.com/) is the foremost Spanish multinational and one of the leading European companies that focus on defence and advanced technologies. It stands at the forefront of the defence, space, air traffic management, mobility, and Information...

Sutherland
1160 Pittsford-Victor Road, Pittsford (Rochester), NY, US, 14534
Last Update: 14/09/2026
Artificial Intelligence. Automation. Cloud Engineering. Advanced Analytics. For Enterprises, these are key factors of success. For us, they’re our core expertise. We work with global iconic brands. We bring them a unique value proposition through market-leading techn...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Indra







Sutherland






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Indra has 31.97% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Sutherland in 2026.
Incident History - Indra (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Indra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Sutherland (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Sutherland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Indra

Sutherland
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.