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

Comparison Overview

JLL UKJLL UK
VS
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServicesBerkshire Hathaway HomeServices
JLL UK

JLL UK

30 Warwick Street, London, W1B 5NH, GB

Last Update: 14/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.jll.co.uk/
763/1000Fair

JLL UK, a leading professional services firm specialising in real estate and investment management. We take pride in choosing the more intelligent, optimistic, and collaborative way forward. With over 200 years of real estate experience, we are,and always have been, in ...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

N/A

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
774/1000Fair

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices is a global residential real estate network with more than 50,000 real estate professionals and nearly 1,600 offices across 4 continents and 13 countries and territories including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Middle East, The Ca...

NAICS:N/A
NAICS Definition:Others
Employees:12,647
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
JLL UK

JLL UK

-
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
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

-
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 Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for JLL UK in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - JLL UK (X = Date, Y = Severity)

JLL UK 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 - Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices 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...
JLL UK

JLL UK

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
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: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8