Comparison Overview

Jacobs

VS

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Jacobs

1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX, 75201, US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

At Jacobs, we're challenging today to reinvent tomorrow – delivering outcomes and solutions for the world's most complex challenges. With a team of approximately 45,000, we provide end-to-end services in advanced manufacturing, cities & places, energy, environmental, life sciences, transportation and water. From advisory and consulting, feasibility, planning, design, program and lifecycle management, we're creating a more connected and sustainable world.

NAICS: 5416
NAICS Definition: Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees: 65,143
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

200 Pier 4 Blvd, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210, US
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 800 and 849

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact. Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place. BCG Privacy Policy: https://www.bcg.com/about/privacy-policy.aspx

NAICS: 5416
NAICS Definition: Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
Employees: 37,117
Subsidiaries: 24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jacobs.jpeg
Jacobs
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/boston-consulting-group.jpeg
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
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
Jacobs
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

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

No incidents recorded for Jacobs in 2025.

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

No incidents recorded for Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2025.

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

Jacobs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Boston Consulting Group (BCG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jacobs.jpeg
Jacobs
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/boston-consulting-group.jpeg
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jacobs company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Jacobs company.

In the current year, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company and Jacobs company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company nor Jacobs company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company nor Jacobs company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company nor Jacobs company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Jacobs company nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Jacobs company.

Jacobs company employs more people globally than Boston Consulting Group (BCG) company, reflecting its scale as a Business Consulting and Services.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Jacobs nor Boston Consulting Group (BCG) holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H