Comparison Overview

Intrado

VS

Luxoft

Intrado

11808 Miracle Hills Dr, Omaha, Nebraska, US, 68154
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 700 and 749

West (formerly Intrado Corporation) solutions connect people and organizations at the right time and in the right ways, making those mission-critical connections more relevant, engaging, and actionable - turning Information to Insight.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 786
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Luxoft

Gubelstrasse 24, Zug, CH, 6300
Last Update: 2025-11-25
Between 800 and 849

Luxoft, a DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC), is a digital strategy and software engineering firm providing bespoke technology solutions that drive business change for customers the world over. Acquired by U.S. company DXC Technology in 2019, Luxoft is a global operation in 44 cities and 21 countries with an international, agile workforce of nearly 18,000 people. It combines a unique blend of engineering excellence and deep industry expertise, helping over 425 global clients innovate in the areas of automotive, financial services, travel and hospitality, healthcare, life sciences, media and telecommunications. DXC Technology is a leading Fortune 500 IT services company which helps global companies run their mission critical systems. Together, DXC and Luxoft offer a differentiated customer-value proposition for digital transformation by combining Luxoft’s front-end digital capabilities with DXC’s expertise in IT modernization and integration. Follow our profile for regular updates and insights into technology and business needs.

NAICS: 5415
NAICS Definition: Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees: 13,905
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intrado-corp.jpeg
Intrado
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/luxoft.jpeg
Luxoft
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
Intrado
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Luxoft
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Intrado in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Luxoft in 2025.

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

Intrado cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Luxoft cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intrado-corp.jpeg
Intrado
Incidents

Date Detected: 6/2022
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/luxoft.jpeg
Luxoft
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Luxoft company and Intrado company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Intrado company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Luxoft company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Luxoft company nor Intrado company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Luxoft company nor Intrado company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Intrado company nor Luxoft company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Intrado company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Luxoft company.

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

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Intrado nor Luxoft holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

ThingsBoard in versions prior to v4.2.1 allows an authenticated user to upload malicious SVG images via the "Image Gallery", leading to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The exploit can be triggered when any user accesses the public API endpoint of the malicious SVG images, or if the malicious images are embedded in an `iframe` element, during a widget creation, deployed to any page of the platform (e.g., dashboards), and accessed during normal operations. The vulnerability resides in the `ImageController`, which fails to restrict the execution of JavaScript code when an image is loaded by the user's browser. This vulnerability can lead to the execution of malicious code in the context of other users' sessions, potentially compromising their accounts and allowing unauthorized actions.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to to verify that the token used during the code exchange originates from the same authentication flow, which allows an authenticated user to perform account takeover via a specially crafted email address used when switching authentication methods and sending a request to the /users/login/sso/code-exchange endpoint. The vulnerability requires ExperimentalEnableAuthenticationTransfer to be enabled (default: enabled) and RequireEmailVerification to be disabled (default: disabled).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Mattermost versions 11.0.x <= 11.0.2, 10.12.x <= 10.12.1, 10.11.x <= 10.11.4, 10.5.x <= 10.5.12 fail to sanitize team email addresses to be visible only to Team Admins, which allows any authenticated user to view team email addresses via the GET /api/v4/channels/{channel_id}/common_teams endpoint

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Exposure of email service credentials to users without administrative rights in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Devolutions Server: before 2025.2.21, before 2025.3.9.

Description

Exposure of credentials in unintended requests in Devolutions Server.This issue affects Server: through 2025.2.20, through 2025.3.8.