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

Comparison Overview

NPG Security ServicesNPG Security Services
VS
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
NPG Security Services

NPG Security Services

1001 Fairway Drive, Bensenville, 60106, US

Last Update: 09/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.npgcontrol.com
657/1000Weak

NPG Security Servicesis a security officer company serving commercial accounts primarily in the Chicago and Northern Illinois area. Established in 1971 the company specializes in high quality security services at very competitive rates. The NPG business model is base...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:23
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

9 Campus Drive, Parsippany, 07054, US

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.securitasinc.com
797/1000Fair

Securitas knows Security. It is our only business. As The Leader in Protective Services, we invest in people, knowledge and technology to deliver customized, cost-effective and class-leading solutions. Our parent company, Securitas AB, is a global company headquartered ...

NAICS:5616
NAICS Definition:Investigation and Security Services
Employees:43,529
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
NPG Security Services

NPG Security Services

-
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
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

-
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 Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for NPG Security Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - NPG Security Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NPG Security Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 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...
NPG Security Services

NPG Security Services

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
INT1772490694
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-84857
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in sigoden aichat up to 0.30.4. This affects an unknown function of the file src/serve.rs of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation causes uncontrolled memory allocation. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
3.9
CVE-2026-84856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in rowboatlabs rowboat up to 0.9.1. The impacted element is the function request.text/req.json of the file apps/rowboat/app/api/composio/webhook/route.ts of the component Composio Webhook Endpoint. The manipulation results in denial of service. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 0.9.2 is sufficient to resolve this issue. Upgrading the affected component is recommended. The legacy Next.js app was deleted at 0.9.2 rather than patched, leaving no security control behind.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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
3.9
CVE-2026-84852
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Reader Tools PDF Reader App 98.8 on Android. The affected element is the function ActSplashNew.handleDeeplink of the component File Handler. The manipulation of the argument _display_name leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS2
Base Score: 3.2
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-84452
SUMMARY

Windows ML CLI is a command line tool for building portable, performant, and high-quality AI models for Windows ML. Prior to 0.4.0, the src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py component exposes WinML CLI commands through a localhost HTTP API without authentication and configures the allow_origins setting as a wildcard in both src/winml/modelkit/serve/cli_api.py and src/winml/modelkit/serve/app.py. A malicious website loaded by a user can send cross-origin requests to /v1/cli/build or /v1/cli/config and set the trust_remote_code parameter to true, which is converted to the --trust-remote-code command-line flag without validation. This reaches AutoConfig.from_pretrained with trust_remote_code=True in src/winml/modelkit/loader/_autoconfig.py and imports Python code from an attacker-controlled model repository, resulting in arbitrary code execution as the server user. This issue is fixed in version 0.4.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-84292
SUMMARY

fast-uri serializes the port component of a URI without validating it. When recomposing the authority, the userinfo and host components are escaped but the port is concatenated verbatim, so a port value that is not a sequence of digits can inject authority delimiters, demoting the intended host to userinfo and pointing the authority at an attacker-controlled host. Both fast-uri and Node's URL read the result back as the attacker's host with no error, so re-validating the built URI does not catch it. This affects applications that build URIs from parts and assign untrusted data to the port component through the serialize, normalize, or equal functions in their object forms. The issue affects fast-uri versions before 2.4.6, from 3.0.0 before 3.1.7, and from 4.0.0 before 4.1.4. It is fixed in 2.4.6, 3.1.7, and 4.1.4, where recomposeAuthority rejects any port that is not a digit sequence per RFC 3986.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-02
UPDATED
Date2026-09-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9