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

Comparison Overview

Infosys BPM PhilippinesInfosys BPM Philippines
VS
TTECTTEC
Infosys BPM Philippines

Infosys BPM Philippines

BGC Corporate Center, 30th Street corner 11th Avenue, Taguig, undefined, undefined, PH

Last Update: 03/02/2026

View Profile
753/1000Fair

Infosys BPM Philippines, one of the delivery centers of Infosys BPM, began operations in the Philippines in 2007 and has grown to become a next-generation business process management company providing end-to-end business process management outsourcing services for our c...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:375
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TTEC

TTEC

100 Congress Ave, Suite 1425, Austin, Texas, US, 78701

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.ttec.com/
681/1000Weak

We’re TTEC (pronounced t.tec). For over 40 years we have been obsessed with one thing: Helping the world’s best brands deliver exceptional customer experiences (CX). We're not just another BPO company. We're CX innovators, with deep understanding of what makes customers...

NAICS:541615
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:41,059
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Infosys BPM Philippines

Infosys BPM Philippines

-
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
TTEC

TTEC

-
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 Infosys BPM Philippines in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for TTEC in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Infosys BPM Philippines (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Infosys BPM Philippines 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 - TTEC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TTEC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Infosys BPM Philippines

Infosys BPM Philippines

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TTEC

TTEC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TTE2240171122
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TTE16021322
🔒 Incident : Breach
TTE451080425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-78122
SUMMARY

docker-socket-proxy fails to properly gate read endpoints in the /containers Docker API namespace when the CONTAINERS environment variable is set. Attackers can use GET requests to /containers/{id}/archive, /containers/{id}/export, /containers/{id}/logs, and /containers/{id}/top to read arbitrary files and download entire container filesystems as tar archives.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-22
UPDATED
Date2026-08-22
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-78049
SUMMARY

A vulnerability has been found in Systerel S2OPC up to 1.7.3. Impacted is the function SOPC_NodeMgtHelperInternal_AddVariableNodeAttributes of the file src/ClientServer/address_space/internal/sopc_node_mgt_helper_internal.c of the component AddNodes Service. The manipulation of the argument UserAccessLevel leads to out-of-bounds read. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitability is considered difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of the patch is aafbd37d381b618312ebdf5ddf57027f62c14fdd. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-22
UPDATED
Date2026-08-22
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.6
Complexity: HIGH
AV:N/AC:H/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-12999
SUMMARY

The Infineon Airoc Wi-Fi driver's transmit callback airoc_mgmt_send() in drivers/wifi/infineon/airoc_wifi.c allocates a net_buf from the fixed airoc_pool for every outbound packet. When whd_network_send_ethernet_data() returns a synchronous failure, the underlying WHD library does not take ownership of the buffer, but the pre-fix driver returned -EIO without releasing it. Each failed transmit therefore permanently leaks one buffer from the pool. airoc_pool is small and fixed (AIROC_WIFI_TX_PACKET_POOL_COUNT + AIROC_WIFI_RX_PACKET_POOL_COUNT, default 20 buffers) and is shared by WHD's whd_host_buffer_get callback for both transmit and receive. Once enough send failures have leaked the pool dry, airoc_wifi_host_buffer_get() returns WHD_BUFFER_ALLOC_FAIL for all subsequent allocations, so both transmit and the WHD-driven receive path fail and Wi-Fi connectivity is lost until the device is rebooted. The leak occurs only on the transmit error path. A Wi-Fi-adjacent attacker can influence the conditions that cause synchronous send failures (for example by deauthenticating/disassociating the station while the local stack continues to attempt transmits), and ordinary transient failures over the device's lifetime accumulate toward the same state. Reliable on-demand triggering is of high complexity and the impact is availability-only, but the resulting denial of service is permanent and non-recoverable without a reboot. The fix releases the buffer with airoc_wifi_buffer_release() on the failure branch, returning it to the pool. The commit also removes a redundant k_sem_give() in airoc_mgmt_disconnect(); because data->sema_common is a binary semaphore (limit 1) the duplicate give merely saturated at 1 and had no security impact.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-22
UPDATED
Date2026-08-22
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74733
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: gpio: pca953x: fix pca953x_irq_bus_sync_unlock regmap lock Locking is disabled in the regmap config as this driver uses its own lock. This means that all calls to regmap functions (read or write) must hold the i2c_lock. The function pca953x_irq_bus_sync_unlock() did not do this, and it was therefore possible that multiple threads could cause an incorrect register to be read/written. A previous patch partly fixed this, but only protected the write to the interrupt mask register, and not the read from the direction register.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-22
UPDATED
Date2026-08-22
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-74732
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: drm/amd/display: Check for tg ops in dce110_set_avmute Some older DCE timing generators do not implement is_tg_enabled in their ops table. Calling it unconditionally when waiting for AV mute frames causes a NULL pointer dereference on Southern Islands dGPUs when turning the display off over HDMI. Check that tg and the required ops exist before waiting for frames. (cherry picked from commit 2686a0c0aaa07bec2e24131835cf27b5fd4935a5)

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-22
UPDATED
Date2026-08-22
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA