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

Comparison Overview

Jackson Lewis P.C.Jackson Lewis P.C.
VS
DLA PiperDLA Piper
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C.

666 3rd Avenue, New York, 10017, US

Last Update: 28/03/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.jacksonlewis.com
664/1000Weak

Focused on employment and labor law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 1,000+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and ...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:2,454
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

160 Aldersgate Street, London, EC1A 4HT, GB

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.dlapiper.com
782/1000Fair

DLA Piper is a global law firm helping our clients achieve their goals wherever they do business. Our pursuit of innovation has transformed our delivery of legal services. With offices in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific, we deliver excepti...

NAICS:54111
NAICS Definition:Offices of Lawyers
Employees:13,333
Subsidiaries:15
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C.

-
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
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

-
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 Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jackson Lewis P.C. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Law Practice Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for DLA Piper in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Jackson Lewis P.C. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jackson Lewis P.C. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - DLA Piper (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DLA Piper 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...
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
JAC5892858091925
🔒 Incident : Breach
JAC821072525
DLA Piper

DLA Piper

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82592
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in D-Link DIR-825M 1.1.8. This affects the function sub_46725C of the file /boafrm/formDiskFormat of the component Disk Formatting Handler Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument partition results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-82591
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Open Asset Import Library Assimp up to 6.0.2. The impacted element is the function MD5Importer::MakeDataUnique of the file code/AssetLib/MD5/MD5Loader.cpp. The manipulation of the argument iNewIndex leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The identifier of the patch is bf9dabb617c46e5133dac65cca6bff177917afcb. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: 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: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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-82590
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. The affected element is the function smf_nudm_sdm_handle_get of the file src/smf/nudm-handler.c of the component SMF. Executing a manipulation of the argument preemptCap can lead to reachable assertion. The attack may be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is sufficient to fix this issue. This patch is called 4554405f29bffd7562abedbee63484825bd90cd5. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: 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: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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82589
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. Impacted is the function amf_namf_comm_handle_n1_n2_message_transfer of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component N1-N2 Message Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument N1N2MessageTransferReqData.n2InfoContainer.smInfo.n2InfoContent.ngapIeType results in denial of service. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is recommended to address this issue. The patch is named abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82588
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component Transfer Endpoint. Such manipulation leads to null pointer dereference. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is capable of addressing this issue. The name of the patch is abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: 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: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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8